Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newquay and District Water Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Wadebridge Rural District Council Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Ilford Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

SELECTION.

Ordered, That Sir Irving Albery be added to the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. Stuart.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.

Address for
Return of Licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, showing the number of experiments performed under the Act during 1936, and the registered places at which such experiments may be performed (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 147, of 1936)."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Minister of Labour whether the committee which His Majesty's Government have set up to inquire into the questions of holidays with pay will investigate the practical questions involved in the ratification of the International Labour Convention on that subject; and whether, if the committee reports favourably, the Government will ratify the Convention and introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to it?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Full information was given to the committee in the evidence of the Ministry of Labour as to the aspects of the subject discussed by the International Labour Organisation. Until the committee has reported I am not in a position to make any statement as to the action which the Government may take.

Mr. Louis Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate receiving this report before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Brown: I think that it is very unlikely.

Viscountess Astor: Why?

Mr. Brown: The committee was set up to investigate and establish all the facts, and we want all the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

IRISH FREE STATE LABOUR.

Mr. L. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether, in connection with the employment of imported Irish labour in this country, he will consider whether it would be possible to arrange for the return to Ireland of these workers in the event of their losing employment or becoming a charge on the Unemployment Insurance Fund;

(2) whether, in view of the fact that there are over 20,000 unemployed agricultural labourers on the lists of the employment exchanges at the present time, he will consider the desirability of refusing admission to this country of additional agricultural labourers from Ireland until such time as the surplus of British agricultural labourers has been absorbed?

Mr. E. Brown: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, there is no authority to restrict the entry of British subjects into the United Kingdom. Similarly, there is no provision for deporting British subjects from the United Kingdom, from whatever Dominion they may come and, therefore, it is impracticable under existing legislation to remove persons compulsorily to the Irish Free State. At the same time, in cases where the individual concerned is ready to be repatriated to the Irish Free State, arrangements have been made for this to be done.

Mr. Smith: Has my right hon. Friend prepared any estimate of the cost to this country of the Irish Free State problem in this matter?

Mr. Brown: I have no figures to give, but the question of the extent of Irish Free State migration into this country is under examination with a view to ascertaining the facts.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in which country the bulk of these men are employed, and how is that labour distributed?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice.

MUNITIONS FACTORY, BRIDGEND.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour the sources of recruitment for the Bridgend munitions factory; and whether any instruction is issued which debars unemployed persons from Maesteg, Aberkenfig, Pontycymmer, and Ogmore Vale Employment Exchanges?

Mr. E. Brown: Preparatory work only is at present being carried out by local contractors to the Office of Works and by the Great Western Railway which employs about 100 men who, with the exception of five permanent employes of the railway company, were engaged from the register of the Employment Exchange at Bridgend. When the building contracts are in operation, vacancies notified to the Bridgend Employment Exchange will be brought to the notice of suitably qualified men locally, or, as necessary, in neighbouring areas, including those mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will stipulate in all contracts that, except for technicians, local labour must be engaged at the preparatory or constructional work at the Bridgend munitions factory?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): No, Sir, it is not considered to be in the public interest to include such a condition in contracts. It is, however, the practice of my Department to press contractors to make the utmost use of the employment exchange service in the engagement of both skilled and unskilled labour.

Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the Special Areas in particular, conditions of this kind ought to be inserted in every contract?

Sir P. Sassoon: In future notification to the exchanges of any vacancies will be made a contractual obligation.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: If it is to be incumbent upon contractors to obtain labour from the employment exchanges, will it also be incumbent upon the unemployed to take the employment that is offered?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Since the Minister of Labour, in announcing the Government's programme for the depressed areas to the House, mentioned this and other works, will not the programme be completely negated unless some clause of this sort is put in every contract?

Sir P. Sassoon: No, I do not think so.

BENEFIT (TAXI-CAB DRIVERS).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that taximeter-cab drivers in training, learning London, are refused benefit at the Employment Exchange, Basing Road, Peckham; and will he take steps to advise the manager that payments should be given in such circumstances?

Mr. E. Brown: I have just received a note from the hon. Member which will, I think, enable me to identify the case he has in mind, and I am making inquiries.

BOYS (TRAINING).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour what steps his Department are taking to encourage suitable systems for training boys for skilled trades?

Mr. E. Brown: The training of boys for skilled trades is primarily a matter for the industry concerned, but my Department are always ready to co-operate. I may add that in discussions with representatives of certain industries, special attention has been drawn in appropriate cases to the need for reviewing the conditions of recruitment and training of young persons for skilled trades.

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting the Board of Education to see whether something can be done for the benefit of these boys leaving school?

Mr. Brown: We are in constant contact with the Board of Education in respect of juvenile employment.

Mr. Levy: Would it not be an advantage if some of these boys were allowed to come into these firms, instead of having these restrictions which only allow so many boys to enter skilled trades?

Mr. Brown: That is a matter for the trades concerned.

LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet approved, or has under his consideration, any schemes for the alleviation of unemployment in Lancashire, particularly in Liverpool, Westhoughton and Skelmersdale?

Mr. E. Brown: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the provisions of the Special Areas Amendment Act, 1937, for affording assistance to certain areas outside the Special Areas. No formal representations have yet been received by me that I should direct that Section 5 of that Act should be applied to any of the areas referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Kirby: Does that mean that neither the Minister's own Department nor the local authorities concerned have applied to take steps whereby such companies may be set up?

Mr. Brown: I have said that no formal representations have been made, but I believe that in Lancashire a good deal of work is being done.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED, BRIDLINGTON.

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Lilian Ellen Buxton was recently found employment with Marks and Spencer, Bridlington, by the Doncaster Employment Exchange; that the manager of the firm was unaware of her appointment; that provision for lodging had not been made and that her unemployment benefit has now been disallowed; and whether he will make thorough inquiry into the case?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will take steps to insert provisions in agreements for work for the Defence Departments whereby private firms would be compelled to engage labour, especially

unskilled, through employment exchanges, more particularly exchanges where unemployment is heavy, within reasonable distance of the job?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. While it is, of course, the desire of the Government that the fullest use of the employment exchanges should be made by Government contractors, my right hon. Friend is advised that there are considerable practical difficulties in the way of the precise suggestion for compulsory engagement of labour made by the hon. Gentleman. He will, however, be glad to learn that it has recently been decided to make into a contractual obligation the notification of vacancies to the exchanges which was previously appended to contracts only as a recommendation.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the information that some of these Government contractors are actually advertising in Irish newspapers in Ireland for labour that they could get on the spot in this country?

Sir A. Lambert Ward: I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to that.

Mr. Kirby: Arising out of the original reply, what are the practical difficulties to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred?

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

SEASONAL WORKERS GLASGOW.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour what was the total number of unemployed persons in Glasgow defined as seasonal workers for the year 1936.

Mr. E. Brown: The unemployment statistics compiled by my Department do not distinguish separately persons classified as seasonal workers. During the year 1936, 223 claims to benefit made at employment exchanges in the large burgh of Glasgow were considered by courts of referees under the Anomalies (Seasonal Workers) Order. Of these 48 were allowed and 175 were disallowed. These figures may include some cases in which the claimants concerned resided outside Glasgow.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that Glasgow being near certain coast resorts, these people are forced to take seasonal employment because of the lack of permanent employment in the city itself; and will he undertake at least to give defined seasonal workers in Glasgow more consideration that they have received up to the present?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that recently I passed an Order which alleviated some of these conditions.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that there are still many seasonal workers in Glasgow who have taken seasonal employment only because of the lack of permanent employment in Glasgow?

KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Labour if he can see his way clear to reduce the percentage of five, normally required to qualify firms for the King's National Roll, as this figure was fixed in 1926 and owing to deaths since that date the numbers of disabled ex-service men have been considerably reduced, and this percentage of suitable men is hard to obtain.

Mr. E. Brown: The employment of disabled ex-service men to the extent of not less than 5 per cent. of total staff has been the normal basis of enrolment on the King's National Roll since the scheme was inaugurated in 1919, but enrolment is allowed on other bases in certain trades and the local committees which administer the scheme have a general discretion to effect enrolments on reduced bases in appropriate cases. A comprehensive report presented to the King's Roll National Council in December, 1935, showed that the overall percentage of disabled ex-service men employed by members of the Roll was 4.9 and that local committees had found it necessary to accept reduced quotas from only about 6 per cent. of enrolled firms. In the light of this information, the Council took the view that the normal qualifying basis of 5 per cent. should remain unchanged, but that local committees should be advised of the Council's desire that they should exercise freely their discretion to accept a lower percentage where the circumstances so warrant. The Council confirmed this view at their meeting on

3rd May last, and I do not see sufficient reason for dissenting from their recommendation.

MINING SUBSIDENCE (DEMOLISHED HOUSES).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Commissioner for the Special Areas will advance grants-in-aid to local authorities to provide alternative accommodation for persons whose houses are demolished by mining subsidence?

Mr. E. Brown: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the type of case which he has in mind, I will bring the matter to the notice of the Commissioner for his consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

JOINERS' AND PLASTERERS' DISPUTE.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that housing schemes in Kirkcaldy and building schemes in Falkirk and elsewhere are being held up because of a dispute between joiners and plasterers on the question of fixing plaster-boards; and whether he is now in a position to state when the industrial court to inquire into this dispute is likely to start its work?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the position at Kirkcaldy and elsewhere. The Court of Inquiry which I recently set up to inquire into the dispute in connection with the fixing of certain patent boards opened its inquiry in Edinburgh this morning.

BUILDING INDUSTRY (LABOUR).

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make any statement about the negotiations with the building industry regarding the possibility of increasing the available supply of labour?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I understand that the negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily, and I hope to be in a position to make a more definite statement in about a fortnight's time.

UNEMPLOYED PERSONS (POOR RELIEF,GLASGOW).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total


number of previously registered unemployed who are now on Poor Law relief in Glasgow?

Mr. Elliot: The total number of able-bodied unemployed persons in receipt of poor relief in Glasgow on 15th May, 1937, was 3,495 with 4,646 dependants.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider co-operating with the Minister of Labour in order in future to issue Poor Law relief figures along with the Ministry of Labour's reports on unemployment, so that we can understand the true position of unemployment in Glasgow?

Mr. Elliot: I think there is a very general understanding of the true position of unemployment in Glasgow.

Mr. Lawson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there are so many able-bodied unemployed receiving poor relief in view of the fact that the Unemployment Assistance Board is now responsible for the able-bodied unemployed?

Mr. Elliot: Not without notice.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any statement to make in respect to Government grants for schemes of air raid precautions?

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of local authorities are reluctant to incur expenditure on works in connection with air raid precautions until the Government have indicated the amount of grant to be paid; and can he state when the Government will inform the local authorities of the amount of grant to be paid?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave to a number of questions on this subject on 8th April.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Home Secretary how the issue of gas-masks to the public is to be effected; whether these will be stored in all towns; and how, in a case of emergency, access to such stores will be arranged?

Mr. Lloyd: The detailed arrangements for the issue of gas masks to the public in the event of an emergency are not yet complete, but it can be stated that the respirators will be stored in all towns or districts likely to be subjected to attack from the air, and will be distributed from the store to the individuals at their homes.

Mr. Keeling: Can my hon. Friend say how many of these respirators or gas masks are now available?

Mr. Lloyd: Approximately 8,000,000.

Mr. McGovern: Will these gas masks be available for those who live in the slums to use every day?

Mr. Lloyd: They will be issued free of charge by the Government to all in need in the event of an emergency.

Mr. Kirby: Who is to decide whether a town may or may not be involved in air raids?

SENTENCE (BIRMINGHAM QUARTER SESSIONS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the alteration of a sentence by the acting Recorder at Birmingham Quarter Sessions, on 3rd May, 1937, at the request of the prisoner, Martin Abel; and what additional cost is involved and upon what funds by the additional term of one year's penal servitude?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The additional cost is estimated to be about £30, which will fall on the Vote for Prisons.

Sir J. Mellor: Are there no steps that the Home Office can take to prevent His Majesty's prisons being made a convenience in this Gilbertian manner?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir I would not admit the assumption contained in "that question. I think that, if the hon. Member will allow me to explain the particular case to him, he will see that there was a reason for this rather exceptional treatment.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the fact that the statements implied in my question were confirmed in several newspapers,


is it not desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should give the full facts to the House now?

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COMMITTEE).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now announce the constitution of the committee it is proposed to set up for the purpose of considering the administration of the Cinematograph Act, 1909?

Sir S. Hoare: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I contemplate that the Committee shall consist of three representatives of the London County Council, four representatives of the County Councils' Association, four representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations, four representatives of Scottish Local Government Associations, two representatives of Justices, one representative each of the Home Office and the Scottish Office, and two or three representatives of the general public, together with an independent Chairman appointed jointly by my right hon. Friend and myself. The necessary steps for the selection of these representatives will be taken forthwith.

Mr. Day: Will these names be published?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Sir Percy Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the total number?

Sir S. Hoare: Perhaps the hon. Member will add them up when he sees them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: The right hon. Gentleman said that the names will be published. Can he say when?

Sir S. Hoare: I cannot say. I do not think there will be any delay. At the moment we are trying to obtain the services of a chairman. As soon as we have a good chairman, there will be no delay in publishing the names.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS (PRESS REPORTS).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been

called to the order issued by the chief magistrate at Bow Street Police Court that, in future, occupations and addresses of defendants before the court must not be reported unless they are disclosed in court; and whether, in view of the injustice which may be caused by the non-publication of addresses and occupations in many cases through similarity of names between innocent and offending persons, he will consider whether there is any action he can take in the matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I have made inquiries about this matter, and I think there may have been some misapprehension as to the position. The Metropolitan Magistrates are anxious not to hamper in any way the legitimate reporting of particulars showing the identity of persons charged in the courts; and in order to assist the Press representatives it is their practice to allow them to see the charge sheets so that they may be able to report accurately the names and other particulars mentioned in the course of the public proceedings in court. The charge sheets, however, are not public documents. They are documents prepared by the police and may contain items of information which ought not to be made public. Accordingly, the magistrates have only felt justified in allowing the Press representatives to see these documents on the understanding that they do not use them for the purpose of supplementing the information given in the courts at the public hearing. This has always been the condition on which the privilege of access to these documents has been granted. If compliance with this condition causes any practical difficulties to the Press in reporting such particulars as are necessary for the identification of defendants, I should be glad to arrange a conference with Press representatives for the purpose of examining in detail the nature of those difficulties.

CLUBS (LEGISLATION).

Mr. R. J. Russell: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now name the date of the Government's promised legislation to deal with clubs?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) on 29th April, to which I am not at present in a position to add anything.

METROPOLITAN POLICE ORPHANAGE.

Mr. Short: asked the Home Secretary the financial position of the Metropolitan Police Orphanage and the estimated annual income?

Sir S. Hoare: With the hon. Member's permission I will send him a copy of the annual report of the Orphanage when it is published shortly: it contains the statement of accounts for the year to 31st December last. The future annual income is estimated at about £26,000.

Mr. Short: asked the Home Secretary whether the Charity Commissioners have been consulted in connection with the proposed sale of the Metropolitan Police Orphanage; whether the sale has been completed; what is the number of resident children affected; and whether suitable leaving outfit was provided?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir: the Charity Commissioners have been consulted, but the sale has not yet been completed. Sixty-eight children will be in residence at the date of closing, and each will be given the usual leaving outfit.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS (LOWER-PAID WAGE EARNERS).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give consideration to the need for a national housing scheme, to be carried out in co-operation with the local authorities, and to include standard houses to be let at rents within the means of the lower-paid wage earners?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): Local authorities will be fully occupied during the next year or two in building houses to replace unfit dwellings and to provide the additional accommodation necessary for the abatement of overcrowding, and I do not think there would be any advantage in adopting the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these steps which the local authorities are taking will not deal with the situation adequately? Will he take the initiative in this matter in the same way that he did some time ago in another Department?

Mr. Magnay: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the means test that is exacted by many corporations before they allow the lower-paid workmen to get houses at all?

Mr. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a resolution passed by a conference of local authorities in Lancashire and Cheshire asking the Government to provide adequate Exchequer assistance to enable local authorities to provide houses to let at rents within the means of lower-paid wage earners; and what action he proposes to take for the abatement of overcrowding, in accordance with the terms of the said resolution?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 27th May.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that tenders for the building of houses received by the Liverpool Corporation in recent weeks have shown a big advance in the cost per house, and that other local authorities are experiencing the same upward tendency in their tenders; to what extent such increases are due to shortage of building materials as a result of the Government's rearmament programme; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent profiteering in building materials?

Sir K. Wood: I am aware that in Liverpool and other parts of the country there has been a tendency for building prices to rise. I have no reason to suppose that this is primarily due to the reason suggested in the second part of the question. The position with regard to building materials is being closely watched by the inter-departmental Committee on the Prices of Building Materials with which I am, of course, in close contact.

Mr. James Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement made by the president of the British architects, in which he gave the opinion that the prices that are now being charged are completely unreasonable, and that there is no justification for them?

Sir K. Wood: I have not seen that statement, but I am naturally anxious to


see prices as low as possible. The Liverpool Corporation have already turned down one set of tenders on account of price.

SLUM CLEARANCE, BIRMINGHAM (SHOP-KEEPERS' COMPENSATION).

Mr. Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the hardship recently sustained by small shopkeepers in the city of Birmingham whose businesses have been ruined by the loss of customers caused by the demolition of houses in slum-clearance areas and who are unable to obtain compensation from the local authority; and whether, in view of this, he will consider the advisability of taking such action as is within the Ministry's powers to alleviate the distress of those who are being financially ruined through no fault of their own?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that the corporation have paid allowances in respect of disturbance of trade in 245 out of the total of 253 claims submitted to them, the total amount of compensation paid being £16.927. I have no reason to suppose that the council are not adequately exercising their powers to make grants, but if my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind and will send me particulars, I shall be glad to make further inquiries.

FACTORY, BURNLEY.

Mr. Michael Beaumont: asked the Minister of Health whether he has sanctioned a loan on the part of the Burnley Corporation to enable that corporation to build a factory to be let to a foreign company; and, if so, under what Act Burnley is authorised to undertake this form of trade?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I am, however, informed that while the company is a subsidiary of a foreign concern, it is registered in England. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 47 of the Burnley Corporation Act, 1925.

GOLD STANDARD.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the mischief which the increasing

surfeit of gold production is causing to commerce, pending absorption by the automatic expansion of international trade, he will confer with the Government of the United States of America with the object of offering jointly to help the Chinese Government to establish a Gold Standard and currency to replace the Chinese silver currency gold to the United States of America?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The Chinese Government has not expressed any desire to establish a Gold Standard in that country, and in the circumstances my hon. Friend's suggestion does not appear to be practicable.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the same assurance to the House which was given by his predecessor to the effect that the country will not return to the Gold Standard system until he is satisfied that the causes which brought about the downfall of the Gold Standard in 1931 are removed and not likely to recur; and, in" view of the great concern of industry and those engaged therein regarding the monetary system, will he consider holding an impartial inquiry before any alteration in the present system is contemplated?

Sir J. Simon: The conditions necessary before a return to the Gold Standard would be possible have been clearly indicated in previous declarations by my predecessor which, of course, continue to represent the policy of the Government on that subject. In reply to the second part of the question, I cannot give any undertaking of the kind suggested.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be desirable to have such an inquiry?

Sir J. Simon: I can assure my hon. Friend that this is one of those difficult subjects which are constantly under review.

Mr. Emmott: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that it is in fact extremely desirable that sterling should be linked with gold as soon as the conditions to which he referred are restored?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the concern in industrial and trading circles is to secure control in the first place of the Bank of England?

Sir J. Simon: None of these important matters can be dealt with in reply to supplementary questions.

Mr. Boothby: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already quite adequate control of the Bank of England?

CURRENCY ACT, 1928.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present contingent liability of the Treasury in respect of any deficit that may arise in connection with the Issue Department of the Bank of England under the provisions of the Currency Act, 1928; and can he furnish an estimate of the notes issued which are held in the United Kingdom and abroad, respectively?

Sir J. Simon: In reply to the first part of the question, no such liability as my hon. Friend alludes to attaches to the Treasury. In reply to the second part, it is not possible to frame the estimate desired.

GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL POLICY.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will assure the House that it will be his policy in the future to maintain cheap money rates in the same way as his predecessor?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on this subject given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Mr. De la Bère) on 12th April last.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the approximate cost of the provision of old age pensions to the wives of recipients of old age pensions who fail to qualify because they have not reached the age of 65; and whether, in view of the hardship caused, he will take steps to remove this anomaly in the existing Act?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I estimate that the cost would be £6,500,000 a year rising to £8,000,000 a year in ten years' time. This estimate does not include the consequential extensions if the proposal were adopted which would probably more than

double the expenditure. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 27th May last to the hon. Members for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) and Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie).

Mr. Griffiths: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether he will represent to the Government that it is desirable that the House of Commons should be given an opportunity of expressing their view, and whether they think this money should be spent? Further, is he aware that there is a growing opinion in the country that this anomaly in our social insurance ought to be removed?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have taken notice of what the hon. Member says, but I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman see any other direction in which money could be better spent than in this direction?

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the estimated cost of continuing the widows' pension to those who now lose their pension on their youngest child leaving school or attaining the age of 16 years; and whether, in view of the hardship caused in these cases, he will take steps to remove this anomaly in the existing Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The cost of continuing non-contributory pensions in the case of widows whose pensions cease when their youngest child reaches the limiting age would be a maximum of £160,000 a year reached in some three years' time if the proposal were restricted to pensions now in issue; and would be about £1,000,000 a year if pensions which have ceased to be payable were revived. The Government are not prepared to modify the terms already accorded to the widows of men who died or had attained the age of 70 before the contributory scheme was introduced.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. and gallant Member think the cost of this trivial compared with the amounts we are constantly spending in other directions,


and that we are justified in asking that the Government should give immediate attention to this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This is a matter which could not stand alone.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not this a much more deserving subject that Ministers' salaries?

MEMBERS' SALARIES.

Mr. M. Beaumont: asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Supplementary Estimate dealing with an increase of Members' salaries; and whether the decision will be left to a free vote of the House?

Sir J. Simon: It is proposed to embody the Government's proposal in a Resolution which will be placed upon the Paper at an early date. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented in due course. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Beaumont: Are we to understand that as it has been the custom of this House that Members shall not vote on any subject in which their salaries are concerned, that a vote on this matter will be confined to Ministers?

Mr. Magnay: Will hon. Members who choose their fathers and wealthy relations not vote at all?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole matter in view of the opposition on this side of the House and in the country?

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many on this side of the House who have always wanted, if Members of Parliament are to be paid, that they should be paid adequately?

Mr. Davidson: Will the usual practice be followed and Members be allowed to return this increase to the Treasury if they do not want it?

Sir J. Simon: Nobody can have this forced upon them.

IRISH HORSES (IMPORT).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the collection of

duties upon imported Irish horses was found to be administratively impractical and that they have now been cancelled, he will consider recommending that the remaining outstanding parts of the fines imposed in certain cases of evasion be reviewed by the appropriate authority?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The duties on Irish horses were repealed in accordance with the agreement with the Free State Government announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions on 25th February last. The fines in question were imposed by the magistrates as penalties for false declarations, and the repeal of the duty provides no ground for interfering with their discretion.

TATE GALLERY.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the condition of many of the pictures in the Tate Gallery and the necessity to prevent these pictures from further deterioration; and what steps are to be taken to deal with the saving of these works of art?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Pictures in the Tate Gallery are periodically inspected by experts with a view to ascertaining their condition and advising what steps are desirable for their preservation. Repair and restoration have been undertaken in the past in ordinary course, and the Trustees would no doubt approach the Treasury if they considered further steps necessary.

Mr. Kelly: Will the Financial Secretary have some investigation made as to the number of pictures which are deteriorating and do something to save these valuable paintings from destruction?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This is a matter in the first instance for the Trustees.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the difficult position of the poultry industry, he will consider the desirability of making more effiective use of the Poultry Advisory Committee, or of disbanding this body and making new arrangements


whereby the views of the industry can be more effectively represented?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morison): The Poultry Advisory Committee was set up to advise on technical matters relating to the production and marketing of eggs and poultry, and has been of considerable assistance from time to time. I am also kept fully informed of the views of those engaged in the industry through their representative organisations. No new arrangements would, therefore, seem to be necessary.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on how many occasions he has acted on the advice of this Committee in recent months?

Mr. Morrison: Not without notice.

FEEDING STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now give the House any information as regards the stabilisation of the price of feeding stuffs?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on this subject on 26th April.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am a Conservative, and that the Conservative party were elected to support agriculture? Is he further aware that as a result of the attitude of the Treasury they are losing friends at the rate of a thousand a day?

Mr. Morrison: I do not see what that has to do with the question of the price of feeding stuffs.

CROWN LANDS (LICENSED HOUSES).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of licensed houses or hotels that are located on Crown Lands and the total amount of revenue received by the Commissioners from the occupiers in respect of such establishments?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The number of licensed houses or hotels situated on lands under the management of the Commissioners of Crown Lands is 95. The total amount of revenue received by the Commissioners in respect of 88 of these houses is £52,726 per annum; the remaining seven are held with other premises at unapportioned rents.

Mr. Day: Is Carlisle included in the figures?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say without notice.

COAL INDUSTRY (EXPORTS).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of British coal which has been exported under the trade agreements to Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and the Argentine during the years 1936 and 1937?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Quantities of Coal exported from the United Kingdom to certain countries with which Trade Agreements are in operation during the year 1936 and the period January to April, 1937.

(Statute Tons.)


—
Year 1936.
Period January to April, 1937.(4 months).


Norway
1,327,178
541,576


Sweden
2,692,804
680,998


Denmark
3,332,726
1,108,190


Finland
1,062,671
65,841


Argentine
1,972,023
614,856

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SELBY BRIDGE.

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Transport (1) the present position of the scheme for the by-passing of Selby; and how long it will be before work on the proposed new bridge and road is started;

(2) whether his Department is taking any further action as to expediting the freeing of tolls on the present bridge across the River Ouse at Selby?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner).

Major Carver: May I ask whether the reply was satisfactory? This is the


biggest grievance in the North of England, and will the Minister try to do in his new office what other Ministers have failed to do—free this bridge from toll?

Mr. Paling: Are we to understand that the present bridge is going to be abolished? It is a wretched old structure in any case.

Mr. Muff: Will the Minister bring pressure to bear on the East Riding County Council? If he will do that, we can get on with the bridge.

OMNIBUSES, CENTRAL LONDON.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that during a large part of the day the omnibuses in the central area of London, where the strain on the drivers is greatest, are occupied to an extent far below their seating capacity; and whether he will represent to the London Passenger Transport Board that in the forthcoming revision of schedules every effort should be made to reduce the number of omnibuses plying in this area during the slack period?

Mr. Burgin: I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the London Passenger Transport Board.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Transport whether, since they deal with a matter of direct interest to shareholders, ratepayers, and consumers, he will make available to the public the proposals marked "Confidential" which have been circulated to electricity supply organisations?

Mr. Burgin: I cannot at present add to the full statement which I made on this subject yesterday.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Can the Minister say whether there is any particular reason why this profound secrecy should be maintained?

Mr. Burgin: I explained to the House yesterday that certain negotiations of a confidential character were pending, and that it was a little difficult half-way through those negotiations to alter the character and terms on which they had been commenced. I asked the House to give me an opportunity of looking into the matter.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer represent to the Prime Minister that this puts this House in a ridiculous position, because this document, which is supposed to be confidential, is in the Press, and Members of this House are being invited to attend conferences and discuss it, and yet the House is kept in ignorance of it?

Sir J. Simon: I noticed this when the question was raised yesterday, and I had intended to call the Prime Minister's attention to it, and I will do so. I agree that the position is anomalous, but when negotiations are pending I must not be rash and make an announcement until I know exactly what is involved.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of prosecuting those who have published a document which is marked "Confidential" and which is Crown copyright?

Sir J. Simon: That is a question which should be addressed to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Muff: On a point of Order. Is this not a question for you, Mr. Speaker, to invite these people to come to the Bar of the House on a matter of Privilege?

OSLO TRADE AGREEMENT.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the effects of the Oslo trade convention on British trade with the signatory countries?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I have not yet received the text of the Agreement, although I have seen reports in the Press. As soon as the text is received, the question of the effect of the Agreement on United Kingdom trade will he examined.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when he will be in a position to give an answer?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot.

Mr. Bellenger: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to get this Agreement? Will it automatically come to him for his examination?

Mr. Stanley: Up to now we have always received full information.

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements will be made for the International Sugar Agreement to be discussed and approved by Parliament before being ratified by this country?

Mr. Stanley: I have been asked to reply. The text of this Agreement was laid before the House on 25th May and, in accordance with the usual procedure, it will remain before the House for 21 Parliamentary days before the Government take any steps for the ratification of the Agreement. If there is a general desire for a Debate before ratification, no doubt the question can be raised through the usual channels.

EX-SERVICE MEN (REVIEW, HYDE PARK).

Mr. Smedley Crooke: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he has made with the railway companies for cheap transit to London for Sunday, 27th June, on the occasion of His Majesty's review of ex-service men in Hyde Park?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I am informed that the railway companies have already communicated to the ex-service men's associations the terms on which cheap tickets will be obtainable on the occasion in question. Broadly speaking, half-day return fares will be available for people coming from the Midlands and the South, and day return fares for those coming from a greater distance.

PALESTINE (PUBLIC WORKS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability, in view of the existing situation in Palestine, of making use of Government subsidies and reserve funds for carrying out road and rail developments, for the extension of Haifa harbour, for the stimulation of municipal undertakings by Government loans, advances, and grants, and other matters recommended in the reports of experts?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The public works programme of Palestine is primarily a matter for the consideration of the High Commissioner whose recommendations are submitted in connection with the annual draft Estimates of the territory. In spite of the serious depletion of reserve funds, due to marked reduction of revenue, and heavy expenditure on security in connection with the recent disturbances, work is proceeding rapidly on certain special road construction, on railway improvement, and the extension of telegraph and telephone facilities, but in view of the changed financial position of Palestine and the uncertainty of future policy 37 pending receipt of the Report of the Royal Commission, I cannot encourage the initiation at the present time of new schemes of development.

SPAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the German bombardment of Almeria is a breach of the Kellogg Pact, he will consider approaching the signatories of that Pact with a view to joint representations to Germany against a repetition?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): No, Sir. In the present difficult situation it has been the object of His Majesty's Government to prevent by all means in their power the breakdown of the policy of non-intervention in the Spanish struggle, and to avert the very grave situation which would arise if such a breakdown resulted in a renewed influx of foreigners into Spain for the purpose of taking part in the struggle. His Majesty's Government, therefore, consider that the essential aim should be that full international co-operation in the work of the Non-Intervention Committee and the scheme of naval observation of the Spanish coasts should be restored with the least possible delay. With this aim in view His Majesty's Government communicated last night to the Governments concerned proposals which, it is hoped, may provide adequate guarantees against the recurrence of incidents such as those which brought about the existing situation. It is our hope that the proposals in question will enable the


policy of non-intervention to be fully resumed by all the Governments concerned. His Majesty's Government attach the more importance to such a development since they are anxious to make progress as fast as possible with the question of the withdrawal of foreign combatants in Spain. They regard this matter as urgent, and hope that in an atmosphere of renewed international collaboration it may be possible to continue to work for agreement on this subject.

Mr. Mander: While appreciating what the Noble Lord has said, has there not, in fact, been a clear breach of the undertaking given by the present German Government never to seek the solution of international disputes except by pacific means?

Viscount Cranborne: I have always admired the hon. Gentleman's principles, but I am not so certain about his wisdom.

Mr. Sandys: Was the bombing of the German battleship by Spanish aircraft in complete conformity with the Kellogg Pact?

Mr. Bellenger: Is it the opinion of His Majesty's Government that, in view of incidents of this nature, the Kellogg Pact has no further validity?

EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what countries Great Britain still possesses the rights of extra-territoriality; and whether negotiations are in progress for their abandonment in any cases?

Viscount Cranborne: His Majesty possesses extra-territorial jurisdiction in the following countries among others: China, Egypt, Abyssinia, the French and Spanish zones of Morocco. In the case of Egypt, a convention was signed at Montreux on 8th May between Egypt and the Capitulatory Powers which provides for the abolition of this jurisdiction except for a right to retain Consular courts for statute personnel cases for 12 years. In the case of the French Zone of Morocco discussions will shortly take place with representatives of the French Government for the abandonment of British extra-territorial jurisdiction in that zone.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. T. Smith: (forMr. E. Dunn) asked the Minister of Labour what assurances, if any, have been given to the temporary clerks whose services have now been made permanent in his Department, whereby this temporary service is counted for pension or superannuation purposes as and when such persons become of pensionable age?

Mr. E. Brown: The arrangements in regard to the counting for superannuation purposes of the unestablished service of temporary clerks appointed to the "S" Class in recent years, in the Ministry of Labour as in other Government Departments, are set out in the reports of the Temporary Staffs Committee of the National Whitley Council of 1932 and 1934. Under these arrangements one-half of such unestablished service rendered after 1st June, 1927, and prior to the date of establishment, is reckoned for superannuation purposes, subject to detailed regulations regarding the reckoning of periods of discontinuous service.

Mr. Smith: (forMr. Dunn) asked the Minister of Labour what considerations, if any, have led to the exclusion of employès in his Department from superannuation on account of age; what is the age limit whereupon an employè is barred for superannuation; and what account does he propose to take in future of such persons' temporary service?

Mr. Brown: The general Civil Service rule is applied, namely, that officers cannot be placed on the establishment if their age (after allowance for any period of unestablished service reckonable for pension) exceeds 50 years. Unestablished employès are eligible on retirement provided their service is of sufficient duration, for the gratuities provided by the Superannuation Act, 1887, for unestablished personnel.

Mr. Smith: (forMr. Dunn) asked the Minister of Labour whether, under the superannuation scheme of the Ministry, employès in his Department are compelled to retire at 65 years of age; and, if not, upon what terms employès continue?

Mr. Brown: In the Ministry of Labour, as in the Civil Service generally, officers may be required to retire on grounds of age on reaching the age of 60 or any time thereafter, and cannot be retained, save in exceptional circumstances, beyond 65.

WAR OFFICE (MESSENGERS).

Mr. Adamson: (forMr. W. H. Green) asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of messengers in the War Office Department have become established and so eligible for pensions during the last 10 years; and what is the average age upon which they became established?

Sir V. Warrender: The answer to the first part of the question is "7 per cent." and to the second "43 years 4 months."

Mr. Adamson: (forMr. Green) asked the Secretary of State for War the rates of pay of ex-Service men employed in the War Office Department as messengers; how they are graded for increases by annual increments; and whether a maximum rate is fixed over which no additional increase is paid?

Sir V. Warrender: As the answer is long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

War Office, Headquarters:
Established Messengers: £145 a year rising by annual increments of £7 10s. to a maximum of £190 a year.
Unestahlished Messengers: 47s. 6d. a week, rising by annual increments of 1s. 6d. a week to a maximum of 55s. 6d. a week.

War Department establishments generally in the London Area.—As for unestablished messengers in the War Office.

Provincial Offices.—Varying initial rates of 40s. 2d. to 49s. 5d. a week with one increase of 3s. 1d. a week to a maximum of 43s. 3d. to 52s. 6d. a week according to station.

Industrial establishments as distinct from Offices.—Messengers are paid at the rate authorised for unskilled labour in the particular establishment. They are eligible for one increment, the resultant maximum rates varying, according to station and service, between 425. and 54s. a week.

CATERING INDUSTRY (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour whether there is any machinery whereby regulations can be issued and enforced affecting the hours and con-

ditions of employès in the catering industry?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. After a full investigation of wages and conditions my predecessor decided in 1932 that there was no sufficient case for applying the Trade Board Acts to this industry.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even in this city, the capital of this country, there are girls and men working 12 hours a day in the catering industry and receiving 12s. 6d. per week? Is he further aware that in Messrs. Lyons establishments girls are forced to pay 27s. for a uniform which they cannot take away with them when they leave; and will he introduce some kind of legislation in the near future to deal with the problem of the catering industry?

Mr. Brown: There has been a long inquiry and investigation about this, covering several years, and if the hon. Member has any evidence of the statements he makes, I shall be glad if he will send it to me.

Viscountess Astor: If we can prove that some of these girls are working as much as from 60 to 70 hours a week, in both licensed and unlicensed hotels, will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to look into any cases which are sent to me, if they are verified.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Do I understand that the very difficult conditions for labour in this trade are not to be included in the inquiry with regard to the distributive trades in general?

Mr. Brown: I understand that the discussion includes practically all the trades concerned.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why the Ministry of Labour wanted to make a trade board in this industry, was because they had in their possession definite evidence that scandalous conditions prevailed?

Mr. Brown: But after full consideration, it was decided not to do so.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that Miss Bondfield when she was Minister of Labour found that this problem was too


difficult to tackle, and is not that all the more reason why a National Government should tackle it?

SENTENCES, EXMOUTH.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the case of two domestic servants who were sentenced on 17th April by the Exmouth Bench to two years Borstal detention; that the two girls absconded from their place of employment where they had been placed on licence from the Devon and Exeter Training School; that they were found the same day and brought before a special court the same evening; and whether, in view of the fact that these girls have no criminal record, he will make inquiries as to the desirability of mitigating the sentences imposed?

Mr. Lloyd: The attention of the Home Office had already been drawn to this case and inquiries are in progress. My right hon. Friend hopes that these inquiries will shortly be completed, and he will then give his careful consideration to the case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

DRUNKENNESS CHARGES, LONDON (CORONATION WEEK).

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Home Secretary the number of persons arrested for being drunk and disorderly in the County of London during Coronation week; and the number so arrested during the corresponding week of 1936?

Mr. Lloyd: I regret that the particulars asked for by my hon. Friend could not be extracted without a considerable expenditure of time and labour. I can, however, inform him that the number of persons charged with drunkenness of all kinds in the whole Metropolitan Police District during Coronation week was 492. The figures for the corresponding week in 1936 are not available, but the figure for the week preceding Coronation week was 405.

Sir A. Beit: Does not my hon. Friend consider that that figure is significant, in view of the event which was being celebrated, the record crowds which assembled, and the extended hours of opening of licensed premises; and does he not think that the time has now arrived when there might be some relaxation of restrictions?

POTATOES (PRICE)

Mr. Westwood: (forMr. T. Henderson) asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to lessen the hardship caused to consumers by the further rises which are taking place in the already high prices of potatoes?

Mr. Stanley: The increase in the price of potatoes is not due to causes which are within the power of the Government to control. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20th April to the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Leonard) to which I would add, that although larger quotas were allotted to importers in May, they were still unable to fill them.

Mr. Alexander: Is not the President of the Board of Trade aware that the price factor is contributed to in two respects which are within the control of the Government, namely, the power to impose an import duty and the restriction of acreage under a penalty of £5 per acre?

Mr. Stanley: I could not assume that an increase in price was caused by the presence of a duty which has been on for some time, and in any case, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question of a duty is, in the first place, one for the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that last year the Government consented to a reduction of the duty for three months of the special shortage, in order to correct the price level, and that this year they have declined to do so?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week, and also whether it is proposed to take to-day any business other than the Ministers of the Crown Bill, in the event of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being suspended?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The business for next week will be:
Monday:—Supply, Committee [l0th Allotted Day]. The Dominions Office Vote will be taken,
Tuesday:—Supply, Committee [10th Allotted Day]. The Ministry of Agriculture Vote will be taken.
Wednesday and Thursday:—Finance Bill, Committee.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
To-night the Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended in order to obtain the Report and Third Reading of the Ministers of the Crown Bill. We also propose to take the second Order on the Paper—the Report stage of the Finance [Expenses of Directors of Museums and Galleries] Money Resolution, which, I think, will be unopposed.

Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to get on the Paper the new proposals for extra taxation, in view of what occurred earlier

this week and whether we may have them in time for the further consideration of the Finance Bill?

The Prime Minister: I could not give an undertaking at the present moment, but no time will be lost.

Mr. McGovern: Have the Government already decided on, and, if not, are they considering, the sending of a message of congratulation to the Duke of Windsor on his wedding?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Ministers of the Crown Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 103.

Division No. 202.]
AYES.
[3.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cross, R. H.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Crowder, J. F. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
De Chair, S. S.
Keeling, E. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
De la Bère, R.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Denville, Alfred
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Donner, P. W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Assheton, R.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Leckie, J. A.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Duggan, H. J.
Lees-Jones, J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Dunglass, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Eckersley, P. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Levy, T.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lewis, O.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Elmley, Viscount
Lindsay, K. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Emery, J. F.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lloyd, G. W.


Blair, Sir R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loftus, P. C.


Boulton, W. W.
Errington, E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
M'Connell, Sir J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Everard, W. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot, U.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Furness, S. N.
Macnamara, Capt J. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Magnay, T.


Bull, B. B.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Granville, E. L.
Markham, S. F.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cary, R. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mitchell, Sir W Lane (Streatham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Guy, J. C. M.
Morgan, R. H.


Channon, H.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hannah, I. C.
Munro, P.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Harbord, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hartington, Marquess of
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Harvey, Sir G.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Petherick, M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M (Norfolk N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Higgs, W. F.
Ramsbotham, H.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cox, H. B. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rayner, Major R. H,


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crooke, J. S.
Hulbert, N. J.
Remer, J. R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hunter, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)




Ropner, Colonel L.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Turton, R. H.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wakefield, W. W.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Rowlands, G.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Watt, G. S. H.


Russell, S. H. H. (Darwen)
Storey, S.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Salmon, Sir I.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wells, S. R.


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Sandys, E. D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Stuart, Hon, J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Savery, Sir Servington
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Selley, H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Shaw, Major P. S, (Wavertree)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wood, Rt. Han. Sir Kingsley


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Thomas, J. P. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.



Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Titchfield, Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Somerset, T.
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Major Sir George Davies.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Holdsworth, H.
Rowson, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Hollins, A.
Sanders, W. S.


Ammon, C. G.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Sexton, T. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Banfield, J. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, A.


Batey, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Kirby, B. V.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Burke, W. A.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, W.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGovern, J.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Mander, G. le M.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Huff, G.
Whiteley, W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Paling, W.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gibbins, J.
Parker, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)



Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves-and Mr. Charleton.


Resolutions agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the White-haven Harbour [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Bristol Transport [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

BILLS REPORTED.

CLEETHORPES CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill to be read the Third time; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

HASTINGS EXTENSION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

East Anglesey Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Hastings Pier Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Hastings Pier Bill [Lords.]

HASTINGS PIER BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Third Report from the Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Public

Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Bernays, Sir Edward Campbell, Mr. Duggan, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Edwards, Sir George Hume, Sir Henry Haydn Jones, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Arthur Read, Mr. Short, Mr. Ellis Smith, the Solicitor-General, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. Grant-Ferris and Sir George Hume; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Peter Macdonald and Mr. Wood.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Alexander, the Attorney-General, Mr. Banfield, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Broad, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. Robert Hudson, Mr. Munro. the Solicitor-General, Mr. Spens, Mr. Henry Strauss, Mr. Tree, Captain Wallace, and Major Watt.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL.

As amended, considered.

Mr. Speaker: I do not select the new Clause (Disqualification of persons from business) standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).

CLAUSE 1.—(Salaries payable in respect of certain, Administrative Offices of State.)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the beginning, to insert "After the dissolution of this Parliament."
The object of the Amendment is to bring into operation the payment of the new scale of salaries after the next General Election, and after the electors have had an opportunity of expressly approving of the change. The one thing we desire to avoid is criticism on the grounds that we are taking advantage of our opportunity as controllers of the finance of the country to raise the salaries of some Members of the House. I am sure it was for that reason that the late Prime Minister was reluctant for so long to bring the matter before the House in spite of the fact that resolutions had been passed and recommendations made to that effect. He was naturally and properly diffident about a proposal which might be criticised on those grounds. The subject was not mentioned in any way during the last General Election, and, as a result of the Debates on this Bill, the public are becoming very cynical in the criticisms that they make about the way we are using our opportunities to propose—very properly—an increase of salary for Members of the Government.
Some of the increases, I think, are fully justified, for Ministers of the Crown ought to be paid adequate salaries for the positions they hold. On the other hand, some of the proposals are not so satisfactory, and the opportunity has not been taken to make a reduction of the total sum asked for by the abolition of certain offices which are redundant. There are a certain number of Under-Secretaries with whom we could dispense without the business of government suffering in any way. After the next General Election the situation

will be different, because nobody has the faintest idea what Government will be in power. We all have our ideas of the kind of Government we would like to see after the next General Election, but one cannot form any idea who will be sitting on that bench receiving these salaries. It may be that the present National Government will continue to grace that bench and to conduct the affairs of the country for many decades to come. On the other hand, there are those who can see a Labour Government sitting on the other side. It may be that there will be a Liberal Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] I am not surprised that that evokes the warmest applause of all. There may be a National Government of the Left or a popular front Government which is in such favour everywhere now. I appreciate that some of the suggestions I have made as to the Government which will be sitting there are more probable than others, but we cannot foresee the future, and it would be wise and a graceful act towards the electors, and in accordance with our best traditions, to accept a provision to make the coming into force of these salaries on a date after the next election of Parliament.

Sir Hugh Seely: I beg to second the Amendment.

3.55 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): We must discuss this Amendment on the basis that the objects of the Bill are acceptable, and the point raised is whether the Bill should come into operation as soon as the Royal Assent is given to it, or at some future date. We cannot combine the two grounds put forward by the hon. Member, first the ground of propriety and then the ground that some of the increases are not justified. If the House favours the increases, there really cannot be any justification for saying that they should not be put into operation now. It is proposed to move a Resolution under which it will be proper 2nd possible to raise the salaries of hon. Members. If we are going to deal with these nice matters of propriety, would it not be more appropriate to postpone anything of that sort until after the next Election? I do not think that the majority of the House will support that. The same thing applies in the case of Ministers' salaries.


I agree that it will be possible for this proposal to be represented as an invidious one, and for a certain number of persons honestly to make a little adverse criticism of it, but if it is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do now.

Amendment negatived.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "Act," to insert:
and to four of the Ministers of the Crown to be selected by the Prime Minister from Part II of the said Schedule.
This Amendment is one of a series which hang together, and the purpose is to remove a certain number of Ministers from the first part of the First Schedule, and to see that not all the Cabinet Ministers are paid at the rate of £5,000 a year. I do not grudge paying a Minister well. One of the most expensive things is to pay anyone less than his real value. Although I accept that the ordinary Cabinet Minister as such has equal responsibilty with the others, and that he should be paid a particular fee as a Cabinet Minister, yet, when we take the Cabinet Ministers one by one in their different departments, we see that there is an immense difference between their status. One Ministry holds a much greater position in the eyes of the public than another, while there are others, such as the Ministry of Transport, which once were nearly abolished. I am not sure that a certain number of Ministries could not be cut down. Looking at it from the point of view of the House and the country, it is not a sound argument to say that every Cabinet Minister apart from his Cabinet work should be put on the same basis of payment. I support much of the Bill, but I feel that if the salaries of, say, the Minister of Transport or the President of the Board of Education are raised, it will create a tendency to raise the standard of the whole of the Departments and to lead to other rises in those Departments.
At present there is considerable pressure for money, and it would be well for the Government not to do anything that would raise the standard of expenditure in any of the Departments. We were told when discussing this matter before that it is unfair and invidious that one particular Cabinet Minister should be paid at a different rate from another, and that it was very difficult to make a choice.

In all the general affairs of life there is the difficulty of making a choice as to which man is best for any position. One position may be rather better paid than another, and one man may need it more than another. That is common to the whole of the affairs of the world. I have never heard of any Prime Minister who would mind facing that difficulty. There are far greater difficulties than that which he has to face. My chief reason for asking the Government to make some concession in this matter is that we are faced with growing taxation, and though the country is bearing that heavy taxation very well indeed I ask, is it really wise or is this the best time to raise the rate of the most highly paid people, however good they may be?
We know that we have to-day, and have had for the last five years, by far the best Government for many years. We know that we have good and efficient men in the Government, but is this the best time to raise the whole of these standards? Someone may reply that there is never such a time. My reply is that the time to raise salaries in this way is when taxation is dropping and not when it is rising. When taxation is rising you should be extremely careful what you do in these matters, but if in the course of a year or so we found that we were reducing expenditure and taxation, that would be the appropriate time to raise these particular salaries. In moving the Amendment I recognise fully that there are many difficulties and many inequities, as far as the payment of Ministers to-day is concerned, but I plead with the Government to make some concession to the feelings of many of us. If the Government look at the Division records and other records they will find that they have not very wholehearted support for the Bill. Even at this late stage I ask them to meet us in some way. If they meet us on this point I am sure it would be a valuable thing and in the best interests of what is essential—that is unity within the party and in the country, and the easier collection of the taxation which the Government have to impose.

4.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to second the Amendment.
There are points in the Bill to which I do not object very much, but there are other points to which I do object. I


am concerned that the Minister of Transport should automatically get £5,000 a year and go into the Cabinet. That is a Ministry which we could very well do without. This Bill is brought in at the wrong time, at a time of rising taxation. The Government have apparently forgotten that there is such a word as economy. It seems that they have money to throw about in every possible direction, and they do not mind to what extent they raise Income Tax or any other taxes.

4.6 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: The last words of my hon. and gallant Friend touched me to the quick. I hope it will be proved that the Government have a very great attachment to the sound principles of economy, but I doubt whether we should begin by making what would be a very curious change in the Bill, for the purpose of demonstrating our attachment to that invaluable rule. This matter is one which is raised with several others on Amendments which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has on the Paper. I understand he would amend Part I of the First Schedule, which contains a list of 17 Ministers, counting the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the eight Secretaries of State and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that he would cut that Part down to 10 Ministers by leaving in only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the eight Secretaries of State and the First Lord. Those, under his scheme, would be £5,000 a year offices. He would move the rest of Part I into Part II, or most of them, and put them into the position of £3,000 a year offices, and then he seems to add a rather curious provision and one difficult to work, providing that the Prime Minister has to select out of the enlarged contents of Part II four Ministers at his discretion, who by the fact of their being so selected will become for the time being the holders of £5,000 a year offices. I do not understand my hon. Friend to connect this with their sitting or not sitting in the Cabinet. Indeed, I gather that he takes the view that it is not a good object to equalise, as far as may be, Cabinet salaries by such a provision as is contained in Clause 3, because Clause 3 he proposes to repeal.

Mr. C. Williams: I did not explain the whole of my Amendment to the First

Schedule. My idea was that you would have the four Ministers removed from Part I to Part II, and they would be selected from time to time as they seemed to be the most important positions. It seems to me that the Prime Minister could do it comparatively easily. There could be a readjustment for the public convenience from time to time.

Sir J. Simon: I understand my hon. Friend proposes, also, that we should omit Clause 3. He is not standing for the principle of an overriding levelling of the salaries of those who, in fact, are sitting in the Cabinet. I am afraid we could not accept that view. Our view was given during the Committee stage by the previous Prime Minister. Sir Stanley Baldwin, and very strong practical reasons were given why we should try to secure a level of salaries for those who are in the Cabinet. Those who have experience of the very difficult business of Cabinet making are of one mind that this is a practical matter of real importance in our constitutional system. It offers a freedom of choice, a means of manoeuvring which is of public advantage, ingenious as is the suggestion of my hon. Friend, we could not accept it. We think that the list in Part I of the First Schedule is rightly drawn up. If there is to be an increase from £3,000 in the salaries of those in Part II it should be because they enter the Cabinet.
One curious result would follow from the scheme. The Lord Privy Seal would become a £5,000 a year office. The Lord Privy Seal is usually in the Cabinet; there are very few cases in history where he is not. There are one or two cases where he was outside. There is one living Minister who was outside; the present Foreign Secretary when he was first appointed Lord Privy Seal was not a member of the Cabinet. There was an instance in the eighteenth century, when a gentleman who was anxious to continue a member of the Ministry but not to assume responsibility left it on record, in a letter which he wrote to the Prime Minister, that he insisted on remaining a Minister but refused to take any Cabinet papers, and he asked to remain Lord Privy Seal. We think that our scheme is better as it stands.

Mr. Sandys: Has there ever been a case in which the Lord President of the Council has not been a member of the Cabinet?

Sir J. Simon: I should not like to answer off-hand, as I really do not know. It is quite inconceivable in present circumstances.

Sir Robert Tasker: Will my right hon. Friend say that the increase in Ministers' remuneration does make an improvement in our constitutional system?

Sir J. Simon: Sir Stanley Baldwin pointed out on a previous occasion that it was not a desirable thing, when members of the Cabinet were called together, each appointed to a special post, that for any purposes they should be in different grades, because, amongst other things, if there is a question of adjusting the distribution of offices it is most desirable in the public interest that the Prime Minister should make that adjustment quite freely without causing any heart-burning as between one colleague and another. The former Prime Minister has stated that that has been a difficulty which he has experienced. That is one way in which a constitutional improvement is effected by this scheme.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I do not expect that this Amendment or any other similar Amendment will be carried at this juncture, but I would take this opportunity of saying that I think it is a very great pity indeed, and against the public interest, that before this proposal was made to level up the salaries of Cabinet Ministers and make them all equal, there was not an inquiry as to whether it would not have been possible to have merged some of the Ministries in others and so have reduced the number of Ministries. Since the War the number of Ministries is very much greater than it was previously; Cabinets have grown since the War to a very large extent. I do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Prime Minister, when he is adjusting the personal and other claims of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, is of necessity serving the public interest, because sometimes he is serving other interests about which, for the moment, I do not desire to say anything; but, speaking as one with a very tiny experience of Cabinet office, I am convinced that a considerable amount of public money could be saved by amalgamating offices which are at present held by various Ministers.
I support the statement of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that creating a Cabinet of 21 or 22 Members, not only involves paying these Cabinet salaries to particular Ministers, but advances the status of their particular Ministries and means that we have to increase the salaries of the men or women who are serving in those Ministries. I hope that if there is a Socialist Government next time those who control it will take this matter in hand again, because I feel that the present number of Ministries causes a grave waste of public money, and if it had been possible, and my hon. Friends would have agreed, I should have liked to have seen the number considerably reduced. It is my own view that a Cabinet of not more than half a dozen members would be much more effective than the Sanhedrim, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) once called the Cabinet, which is at present in existence.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I think that something ought to be said from this side, because if this question is raised in the future we do not want it to be said that we on these benches did not put forward a different point of view from that which has been expressed. I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of the salaries proposed for members of the Cabinet. People put forward the idea of reducing the numbers in the Cabinet, but I cannot think of any Cabinet position which could be done away with at the present time. Some people say that the Minister of Transport should be done away with, but I know of no greater problem in this country than that of transport and the roads. Further, some of us think there ought to be a Minister who should direct his attention to the economic needs of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has on several occasions called attention to the need for a Minister who would concentrate on the problem of the derelict areas, and of industries that were likely to become derelict, in order to save the people from becoming the victims of changing industrial conditions in the way they are at present. I also have an idea for an addition to the number of Ministries. In France, the working people are to have a full week's holiday with pay, and France has had to appoint


an additional Minister to be known as the Minister of Leisure.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting far away from this Amendment.

Mr. Smith: I respect that Ruling, but other speakers have urged the need for reducing the numbers in the Cabinet, and I cannot allow that suggestion to pass without expressing the opposite view, because it might be said that we were prepared to acquiesce in a reduction, whereas we think that a case could be made out for an increase in the numbers.

Amendment negatived.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(2) The annual salaries payable to the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General shall be reduced to four thousand pounds and three thousand pounds, respectively.
This Amendment brings forward again one of the most substantial discussions which took place during the Committee stage, and was then in fact left open by the Government with the statement by the Minister of Health that he would consult his colleagues on certain proposals which had been made and let them know the views which had been put forward. After that statement we did not continue with the discussion. I hope that consultation has since taken place.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood) indicated assent.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Therefore, this is the time when a reply should be given. In the last Debate many Members raised the question of the immense total income of the Law Officers of the Crown if we put together their official salaries and the fees they obtain for their work as counsel in court. The Attorney-General replied that for their work in the courts they did not receive any more than the ordinary professional rates of payment, such as other counsel would receive in those cases, and that they were entitled to the professional fees. That opened up rather a new issue, raising the whole question of the efficiency of this arrangement as distinct from the point about economy. I think the chief speaker to urge that there should be an inquiry into this issue was the Noble Lord who is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whom I am very glad to con-

gratulate upon his appointment to the position he now occupies. The Attorney-General said that the Law Officers obtained the ordinary fees of counsel of good standing. At that rate of payment they earn many thousands of pounds a year in the courts. The question arises, if they are spending all this time doing the work of counsel in the courts can they be giving sufficient time to their work as Ministers of the Crown, sitting in this House and responsible for quite considerable departmental duties?
No other Minister is permitted to earn money in that way. If we pay a Minister a salary according to the present scale, we take it that we are entitled to the whole of his time, and we do not allow him to occupy his time with work which could be done equally well by persons outside, and better, and to earn in that way £10,000 or £12,000 a year. We do not allow any other Minister to spend even an hour in writing an article for the newspapers. Therefore, the question arises whether we should maintain what is really an anomaly in our present system. The Law Officers are busy departmental heads. All the other Departments are continually putting to them questions which they have to decide. In the last Debate there was considerable complaint that the Law Officers do not sit in this House and on committees as frequently as they ought to sit, and in my own experience I can recall an occasion when one of the Law Officers, a predecessor the present Attorney-General, who was engaged in very important Parliamentary business, where much depended upon him and he was needed for consultation day by day, disappeared for three days in order to prosecute some murderer at a seaside town, and left the Government in a difficulty. The murderer was so clearly guilty that anybody could have obtained a conviction, and the presence of the Attorney-General was not necessary at all. I cannot understand why these departmental heads should be engaged in the courts, or why, particularly, so many of them like to spend their time in dealing with the more gruesome kind of murder cases.
This is not a clash of duties which is being invented for the purposes of debate. It was referred to by Lord Hailsham in his evidence before the Select Committee. He said the Law Officers were often faced with the choice, "Shall I go to the courts of law, or shall I attend this committee


which it is my official duty to do?" Of course, he rather naively said that on those occasions the Law Officer always preferred the duty for which he was not paid. That part of his argument seemed to me rather weaker than the first part. His observations are to be found on page 46 of the evidence. It was also argued in the course of the last Debate that we must obtain the best counsel to conduct these cases in the courts of law, but there is no guarantee that under the present system we do get the best counsel conducting cases, often cases on which many millions of pounds depend. It is only by an accident that "the best counsel for this case" happens to be a man who has taken up politics. The point arises whether we should not get better value for our money if the Law Officers were put in the position of other Ministers and restricted to a confined duty, perhaps conducting a certain range of cases but leaving other work to be undertaken by other counsel.
The Attorney-General replied to the last Debate, and if he replies again to-day I should like him to clear up one point which was raised last time but on which nobody could get a decisive view. The Law Officers, in addition to their salaries of £5,000 or £4,000 a year, and in addition to their fees, really get an indirect reward from another direction, because the House takes it for granted, and every Government takes it for granted, that they have the right to certain high positions in the State regardless whether they happen to be the most suitable persons. It is taken for granted that Law Officers are entitled, if they so wish, to become Master of the Rolls or Lord Chancellor. The two offices referred to by Lord Hailsham were those of the Lord Chancellorship and the Master of the Rolls. Other cases were cited by other witnesses.
It is surely an extraordinary tradition that the Law Officers have managed to lay down. Other Ministers do not do so. The President of the Board of Trade has just retired, but he did not claim that he should be a director of the Suez Canal. I was Postmaster-General, but I did not claim that I should be a director of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Why should a Law Officer claim, and why should it be generally accepted by Governments that they are entitled to, those poscitions? Many thousands of people depend upon them; I should have

thought the chief consideration would be to get the men most suitable for the work. Why should we put people into these positions merely because they happen to have a political pull? I shall be very glad to have a statement to-day denying that Law Officers have any claim in future to positions outside this House merely because they have occupied positions here. Such an announcement would have a great effect upon the atittude of Governments in the future. I will not carry the subject further. I hope that we shall get a definite statement as to what tradition the Government expect shall be followed in this respect.

4.33 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I will endeavour to deal with a few of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. First I would say a word upon the last matter to which he referred. I am afraid he followed a method which consists in asserting that something is a fact, demanding whether is is true or not, and asking whether it can be denied and what is the meaning of it all. The proposition that he stated was that the Law Officers demanded, and were regarded as entitled to, certain high posts in the State. That is not correct. So far as I am aware, the Law Officers of the Crown have never put forward such a proposition. One does not want to go into personalities on a matter of this kind, but I suggest that one has only to consider the present position in respect of the Master of the Rolls and other high officials to see that there is no foundation in the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman. I am able to state, in the presence of the Prime Minister and of the Attorney-General, that no such claim is made.
At the conclusion of the Debate when this point was discussed before, all I could say was that this was obviously a matter that the Government would take into consideration and that I would present to my colleagues a report of what had taken place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I did present to our colleagues a resumèof the proceedings of the committee upon this point. The Government have considered the matter, and have taken into account two or three things which, I think, are material to the present proposal. I would first recall that considerable cuts were made in the salaries of the Law Officers, as well


as of a large number of others in the State. The Law Officers sustained a cut of some 66 per cent., and when that cut was terminated, the Attorney-General, then Solicitor-General, with the late Attorney-General requested that the recommendations of the 1920 Committee regarding the remuneration of the Law Officers should be put into force. The recommendation of that committee was that the salary of the Law Officers should be reduced by £2,000 per annum, to £5,000 and £4,000 respectively, and that the fees for contentious business should remain. Further, the Government have taken into consideration the recommendation of the 1930 Committee, which reported:
Your Committee have given very careful consideration to the question of the Law Officers remuneration, but have decided to make no recommendation in regard to it. Their salaries and fees together reach a high figure, but the evidence given by Lord Hail-sham and the Prime Minister went a long way to in the view that they are excessive in proportion to the value of their services to the State. It should also he noted that the fees received are not wholly paid out of the Exchequer, a considerable percentage being recovered from unsuccessful litigants.
The Government have decided, therefore, not to take any action, so far as this Bill is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman rather misconceived the exact position, because he put the Law Officers into a similar category as Ministers, but that is not quite correct. The function of the Law Officers is to advise the Government and respective Ministers, and certainly to take charge of various cases in the courts. Speaking for my own part, it is very valuable to the Ministry of Health that the Law Officers should be conducting our cases. Those are our views. We cannot deal with the Law Officers as though they occupy positions carrying ministerial responsibility similar to that which appertains to ordinary Ministers. I have stated the decision of the Government, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

4.39 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: Some of us have been rather critical of the Bill, largely because it proposes in many cases to increase salaries, and we felt that we should carefully scrutinise a proposal to increase Ministers' salaries at a time like this, however capable those Ministers might

be. I would remind hon. Members that the Bill does not propose to add to the scale of fees or to the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition, and who is a constitutional lawyer and student—

Mr. Lees-Smith: I am not a lawyer.

Sir P. Harris: Well, a constitutional student. I will rob him of the word "lawyer," if he takes exception to it. I suggest to him that he is actuated in this case too much by theory and too little as a realist, although I have always admired him as a very practical man. We have to face the world as we find it. One of the most profitable occupations in the land is to be a clever and skilful advocate in the courts. That has a monopoly value. Anybody who has been unfortunate enough to be involved in litigation knows that the quality of the advocate is vital to the proper statement of their case. I have been in this House for a number of years, and have served upon a number of committees, and I know the immense difference it has made to our proceedings to have a capable and skilful legal mind to assist us. We must consider this question upon general principles, quite apart from the present occupants of these posts. It is in the best interests of the country that we should have our legislation properly drafted by the most skilful lawyers available in the land and, if l may put it in a way that should appeal to the official Opposition, it is only common sense that you should pay the full trade union rate in order to get the most skilful men available for the work.
I happen to be a member of the profession, but I have never been successful enough to get a brief. I know that lawyer after lawyer has been in this House, and that in many cases they have made great sacrifices when taking office. There is the case of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have been critical of many of his actions, but it is quite certain that if he went back to his court work his income would be enormously increased. There is also the case of the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. He was Attorney-General, and drew all the emoluments and fees attaching to that office. At the call of duty, when the


Prime Minister asked him to take on a post at a remuneration very much smaller than his lawyer's salary, he accepted without hesitation, as we should expect. I do not think it can be suggested that the Law Officers are more greedy of gold than any ordinary Member of this House. We should be sure of securing the ablest and most efficient members of the profession, but would it be suggested that they should be paid fees on a lower scale when they represent the Crown than when they represent private interests or the interests of a commercial concern? The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman would inevitably lead to that result. For the good working of Parliament it would be most undesirable, without careful further inquiry, to make an alteration in the arrangements that are now followed with regard to the Law Officers of the Crown.
Another point is that the Law Officers stand in a very special relationship to the House of Commons. We might almost regard them as servants of the House, very much more so than Ministers. On many occasions we have asked for the attendance of the Law Officers of the Crown in this House to advise us, and we have called upon them to give us the legal position. However much we may question the opinion of another Minister, when a Law Officer gives his opinion, the House as a whole, quite apart from party, invariably accepts that opinion upon a matter of law. The House is entitled to be sure that the most capable and competent representative of the legal profession occupies the position of Law Officer of the Crown, but that does not necessarily mean that the Law Officers should always be in this House. We remember the case of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who for some months was Solicitor-General without being a Member of this House. The Government of that day wanted to be quite sure that they had the services of the most able man available at the time, and one, of course, not hostile to the political opinions of that Government. We have to be realists; this House is a practical Assembly; and for that reason I think it would be unwise, without further inquiry at any rate, to accept this suggestion. There may be a case for further investigation of the whole position and emoluments of the

Law Officers, but, on the facts available, I think that this Amendment would be an unwise one to carry.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I do not propose to support the Amendment, and I disagree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), but I think that a case for some further inquiry, not immediately but in due course, exists. The remarks of the hon. Member fairly accurately reflect the general attitude of the public towards the position of the Law Officers. His argument was somewhat on these lines: If we wish to have the best legal brains to assist in the work of the House, we must pay a corresponding salary. But it seems to me that that attitude towards the services of a Member of Parliament in this House is somewhat derogatory. The spirit of this whole House, and the spirit which equally animates Ministers—and I do not think we can really get away from the fact that the Law Officers, when they are Members of Parliament and sit on the Treasury Bench, are Ministers of the Crown—is essentially, not the desire for monetary gain, but the spirit of public service. I am sure that no one in this House would suggest that the Law Officers are not also animated by that same spirit of service.
Therefore it seems curious, and perhaps unfortunate, that the payment of the Law Officers and of the other Ministers of the Crown should be on an entirely different basis, and that it should be assumed that we can only get the best legal brains to assist us here in the House of Commons by paying what might be called the market price. Why should not that apply equally to big business brains who assist us in our work? Who is going to suggest that Mr. Runciman, who has just retired from this House, could not have earned far bigger fees as a company director than he did as a Cabinet Minister? I cannot see that it is right to take into consideration, in the case of the Law Officers, circumstances which we do not take into consideration in the case of other Ministers.
Either the Law Officers are Ministers of the Crown or else they are in the nature of salaried officials in the service of the House. If they are Ministers of the Crown—and I think they are


generally regarded as such—it seems to me that a case has been made out for a further inquiry as to whether their remuneration should not sooner or later be placed on a different basis, that is to say, whether they should not receive a statutory salary, and perform for that salary all the duties which attach to their office, that is to say, the duties of advising this House and also such duties in the courts as it is thought necessary to assign to them. These remarks are not made in any critical spirit, but merely because I consider it right that the House should be made aware of the widespread feeling which exists in the country in regard to the payment of the Law Officers, and because I feel that it is in the ultimate interests of the Law Officers themselves that their status should be put on a basis of equality with that of other Ministers of the Crown.

4.51 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I think the difficulty which arises in regard to this perennial problem is the anomalous position which the Law Officers of the Crown really occupy. As you, Mr. Speaker, will remember, in the old days the Law Officers of the Crown were permitted to engage in private practice, and did so very extensively, outside their duties to the Government of the day. Then came the change by which they were forced to give up private practice, and, as a result, were remunerated for the legal work which they undertook for the Crown, and which might be undertaken by any members of the Bar—I do not mean to say by qualification, but there is no regulation that makes it necessary for the Law Officers to do such work. As a result of that remuneration and the salaries which they receive as Law Officers, there is at the present time a feeling, I think I am probably right in saying on, the part of the Law Officers themselves as well as on the part of the general public, that the remuneration which they receive for a year's work is out of proportion to the remuneration which other members of the Ministry receive for an equally hard, or equally light, however one may look upon it, year's work. As my hon. Friend pointed out just now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General, both very eminent lawyers and both in the Government, have different jobs, the

one being paid quite out of proportion to the other, and nobody would venture to say that either the one or the other was the more brilliant lawyer. It is that disparity which makes people criticise the position of the Law Officers as regards their salaries.
There is a great deal to be said for a complete reconsideration of the position of the Law Officers in the Government. Since the present system came into operation, the legislation in this House has become much greater in volume and much more complex, and, if I may speak from my personal experience, it has become impossible for a Law Officer both to carry out his duties to the House, the Departments and the Government, and to do a very large amount of work in the courts. It is putting an impossible strain upon anybody to expect them to do both of these things. I agree with the Minister of Health that there are departmental cases in which it may be desirable that a Law Officer should appear, but there is a whole multitude of cases in which it is quite unnecessary for a Law Officer to appear, such as Inland Revenue cases and the murder cases which have been mentioned. Why it should be almost a custom that, if there is a murder by poison, a Law Officer should go down to prosecute, when he does not need to go to prosecute in the case of other murders, I really do not know, but it is practically a custom in the Law Officers' Department that, if there is a murder by poisoning, the prosecution should be conducted by one of the Law Officers.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): There may at one time have been such a convention, but it no longer exists. It is perfectly true that a Law Officer did appear in a murder case, and I think it was a poisoning case, but that decision had nothing whatever to do with the fact that it was a case of poisoning, as distinct from any other kind of murder. There are some serious grounds on which in a criminal case I might decide to prosecute.

Sir S. Cripps: I am very glad if my resistance to going on such a case when I was Solicitor-General appears to have broken the custom. I was told at the time that it was the custom, and that I ought to go, but with the consent of the Attorney-General I did not. I am very glad that that has been broken, because


it struck me as being the most ridiculous thing imaginable that a Law Officer should have to spend perhaps a week, or three or four days, away from London at a time when his presence in Parliament might be required by committees or for other reasons.
There is another side of the work which seems to me to be of very great importance, and of growing importance, and that is in regard to the drafting of Bills. In my view it is desirable that the Law Officers should be able to say of any Bill, before it comes before this House, that in their opinion the drafting is in a proper form. I am certain that the Law Officers have not time to make any thorough examination of the very voluminous Bills that come before the House now. That is their true function in advising the Government and in advising the House of Commons, and I am sure we should obviate many of the criticisms which are afterwards made in the courts upon Acts which emerge from this House if the Law Officers were able, both before a Bill was presented and as it emerged from the Committee and Report stages, to make a thorough examination of it and so help Parliament to put its legislation in a proper form.
It is only when one really settles upon the function which the Law Officer is to perform that one can approach the question of how the Law Officers' salaries should be dealt with. In my view, the Law Officer's salary should be fixed, on whatever scale may be settled by the House, and no payment should be made outside that scale for any legal work, just as the Lord Advocate now does the legal work for the Government without any payment specifically for that work. It is true that theoretically he is allowed to embark upon private practice, but the Lord Advocate who has to be in London with Parliament has not very much chance to carry on a private practice in Edinburgh, and of course, as a result, the private practice of the Lord Advocate, as a rule, is something which is of very slight value. I believe that the right course is to fix the amount which a person in the position of a Law Officer should have, and to make it inclusive of all the work that he is asked to do for the House or for the Government. I think that that would have the effect of relieving him of a great deal of the court work which

he is asked to do at present, that work being done, no more economically except from the point of view of efficiency, by other members of the Bar. Until a decision has been arrived at as to whether a Law Officer is really a Minister, and is to be paid and regarded as a Minister, or whether he is half Minister and half practising lawyer, no satisfactory conclusion will be arrived at as regards his salary.
The major factor that one has to bear in mind is that the figures which from time to time are published or brought out in answer to questions with regard to the payment of the Law Officers certainly make the public think that the Law Officers are very much overpaid. I am certain that that is an extremely uncomfortable position for Law Officers, and they would not desire to retain this large extra remuneration if they felt that some logical method could be devised by which their remuneration could be brought more into comparison with that of their colleagues in the Ministry. I entirely rebut the idea that lawyers are necessarily a greedy crowd, and that the only way in which you can get anyone to serve the State who happens to be a lawyer is by offering him extravagant fees or salaries. Those who serve the State in very important posts, many of whom have been distinguished lawyers earning large incomes at the Bar, do not expect to get, in addition to a salary, a fee for every case in order that they may build up a very large salary. I am certain that anyone would be only too willing to accept the honour of the office of a Law Officer of the Crown for a salary no greater than is paid, for instance, to the Prime Minister.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: The whole House must have been impressed by the very able speech we have just heard on a point which has worried many of us for a very long while. Some of us have said more than once in Debates on this matter that it is monstrous to insinuate that lawyers will not take on Government work just as easily as any other section of the community might do, and do it just as well and with just as fine a spirit of sacrifice. I think it is rather unfair that on an occasion like this we hear rather niggling attacks on lawyers on this point. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that it is essential that the


practice of Law Officers prosecuting in criminal cases should be cut out. It is also clear that there is a certain amount of their work, such as advising the Government on certain Departmental questions, which they should take for a fixed salary, in the same way, for instance, that you have the great business experience of Mr. Runciman who has put it over and over again at the call of the Government during the last few years with no fee of any sort or kind except his fixed salary.
I do not think there is anything in the Amendment, but I should like the Government to say they will go into the matter on the lines of trying to fix a stationary salary for the Law Officers with no outside fees. We frequently get into difficulties on legal points connected with different Bills. I have been in the House more or less for 18 years. When I first came in there was never a Debate on any subject in which there was not a Law Officer on the Front Bench. Surely, if they took a fuller part in our Parliamentary work and gave the Government the necessary advice on really legal things, they might come into line and be paid, say, on the basis of another Cabinet Minister. I think that would be the solution of a problem which is not in the best interests of the House or of the legal profession, because it is wrong that they should be set up on a pedestal as Aunt Sallies to be shied at. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has made one of those speeches that he can make if he wishes, of a high character, not only very learned but very wise. If only he would give a little time to that kind of speech how much he could help us in our Debates! Surely the Government might snatch at the opportunity to say they will have a proper inquiry into the matter, if for no other purpose than to give us a chance to show how much we appreciate the rectitude of my hon. and learned Friend.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: In my experience as a trade union officer I have learned to respect the knowledge and integrity of gentlemen of the Bar. I have sometimes been inclined to speak unkindly of them because most of my work in connection with the law has come within the range of

workmen's compensation and the lawyers have made a very sorry mess of what was intended to be a very decent Act. While I agree that the Law Officers of the Crown and legal gentlemen outside the House are entitled to every kind of respect, I do not think they are entitled to any privileges, and in this Bill we ought to deal with them on the same lines as others who give service to the Crown. I understand that those accepting posts in the Ministry have to give up directorships.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with that point. Perhaps the hon. Member had better leave it alone until the Amendment is reached.

Mr. Griffiths: I support the Amendment because it will put the Law Officers in the same position as Cabinet Ministers. I do not think they are entitled to any privileges. It is only because they have a strong trade union that they put forward a claim to privileges at all.

5.10 p.m.

Sir R. Tasker: I was a little astonished at the explanation offered by the Minister of Health when he defended the extra remuneration enjoyed by Law Officers on the ground that they obtained the money from unsuccessful litigants. It is true, as the Mover of the Amendment said, that there is a sort of prescriptive right for Law Officers to succeed to certain higher posts, and that is probably taken into consideration by every lawyer who accepts the office of Attorney or Solicitor-General. While I feel that it would be a little unfair to ask the present Law Officers to accept a remuneration of £5,000 a year and forgo their fees, I think the Government might consider whether in future Law Officers should not be limited to, say, £5,000. I recognise that that entails a sacrifice, but is that not common to most Members of the House? How many Members are there who could not earn very much more if they devoted the time to their own business that they devote to the affairs of the House? That is not a very sound ground on which to argue that certain fees should be enjoyed by Law Officers, or anyone else. We are always talking about economy, and I think we might well exercise it upon that particular section of the Government who enjoy the


unique privilege of engaging in private practice and at the same time receiving remuneration from the Government.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: The hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) repeated what is an obvious misapprehension about the alleged right of Law Officers to receive the office of Lord Chief justice or Master of the Rolls. The Minister of Health has already said that there is no such right. It is obvious that that must be so in a very large number of cases, because clearly it would be possible for a Law Officer to obtain either of those posts only if they were vacant. It must happen in the case of the majority of Law Officers that, when, in the course of time, there is a change in Government, they cease to be Law Officers when these offices are not vacant.

Sir R. Tasker: We know that such appointments follow if in order.

Mr. Foot: If there were some custom that had grown up that a Law Officer was entitled, on application, to one of these particular posts, it would be necessary to have this combination of circumstances. There would have to be a vacancy, and you would have to have a Law Officer who wanted to go to the Bench at the same time. This is the second occasion during the proceedings on this Bill that we have discussed the position of the Law Officers, and it is quite evident, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) pointed out, that we cannot really consider the emoluments of the Law Officers without also considering the position and the duties of the Law Officers. The right hon. Gentleman has on two occasions given the instance of the Law Officer who, I believe, served in a previous Parliament and who went away to prosecute in a murder trial at a time when his services were urgently needed on the Front Bench.
These difficulties, as most people realise, arise from the change which has gradually taken place in the position of the Law Officers themselves. I think that I am right in saying that originally the Law Officers were not in the House of Commons at all, that there was once considerable dispute as to whether they were entitled to sit in the House of Commons, and that the Attorney-General, as a matter of fact, still receives a sum-

mons, though he does not obey it, to go and sit in another place. At any rate, he receives a summons to advise another place. There has been, since these apparently early days to which I have been referring, a steady increase in the Parliamentary duties of the Law Officers of the Crown. There are three tasks that they have been accustomed to perform qua lawyers: first, their advocacy in the Courts; secondly, advising the Crown, and Government Departments on points of law; and, thirdly, which is the side we see most here, advising the House of Commons on points of law. They occupy a slightly different position, even when they are taking part in debate, from an ordinary Minister of the Crown. We always expect the Minister, when he gets up, to make something in the nature of a controversial speech, but it frequently happens that we call a Law Officer not in order to defend any particular position the Government have taken up, but simply to enlighten the House and to give an authoritative statement as to how the Law stands on the particular matter we are considering. Those are the duties which Law Officers perform qua lawyers.
In recent years, certainly since the War, the practice seems to have grown up of treating the two Law Officers of the Crown as supernumerary Ministers or supernumerary heads of Departments. I have noticed even in my brief experience that, when a complicated and difficult Bill is brought before this House, and when it happens to be in the hands of one of the weaker brethren on the Treasury bench who, it is thought, would not be capable of dealing with the more controversial or difficult Clauses, immediately the Government send for a Law Officer in order to sit by the Minister and get him out of any difficulties in which he may involve himself. I am not trying to make any distinction between one Party and another, but it frequently happened in the Labour Government, and certainly in the last Parliament. Therefore, we have the difficulty, to which attention has been drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley, as to the clash between the duties which the Law Officer is expected to perform inside this House and the duties he is expected to perform out-


side. We are sometimes placed in a difficulty because of this comparatively modern development in the treatment of Law Officers by the Government of the day.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has suggested, and other hon. Members have agreed with him, that there ought to be some further inquiry not simply into the amount of the fees or of the salary of the Law Officers, but also into the position of the Law Officers and the duties that they discharge. Until we have made up our minds about that, it is impossible really to come to a satisfactory decision on the question of their fees or their salaries. I suggest that in these days, when it is desirable on so many occasions that we should have an authoritative legal statement made from time to time on points which arise quite casually in Debate, in addition to having the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, it might be greatly to the advantage of the House if one of the sinecure offices was filled by an eminent member of the legal profession. [Interruption.] The gap between the Law Officers and myself is so great that I am not speaking in a personal sense. If that were done it might be possible to release one of the Law Officers from constant attendance in this House. That is the position which has actually arisen for some months past in Scotland. We have the Lord Advocate who is advising the Scottish Office and taking part in Scottish Debates in this House, and we have the Solicitor-General for Scotland who, though he is now seeking to re-enter this House at Hillhead, has not since the last General Election been a member of the House at all. It is an arrangement which, as far as Scotland is concerned, has worked perfectly well.
I think that the case has been made out, particularly by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol, who speaks from his own experience, that the dual duties which we now cast upon the Law Officers have become exceedingly heavy and probably too heavy for any two men to perform. Although I do not thing that the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman are any particular reason for voting for the Amendment, it has been useful that the position of the Law Officers has been raised, discussed and canvassed in this

House, and my hon. and right hon. Friends and I would support the suggestion made from so many quarters that there ought to be some further inquiry into the position and the duties of the Law Officers.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Errington: The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment made some reference to the fact that very often Law Officers went forward to high positions in the State elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman ought to realise that the Attorney-General is the head of the Bar in this country, and it would seem to follow that the judgment of the House or the Government in the selection of the particular gentleman for the position of Attorney-General or Solicitor-General had been justified by the position which they subsequently obtained and have ornamented. I do not think that it is a fair ground for criticism to say that they should not merely by reason of the fact that they have been appointed by the Government as Law Officers they should not be appointed to these high positions in the State. There are more duties than the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) thinks that the Law Officers perform. It is true that the first duty, and the most important in some ways, is that of an advocate, and the advising of the Government and of this House, but in addition there is a considerable amount of administrative work which has to be done. In regard to the Public Order Act, which has just passed through this House, there has to be a fiat given by the Attorney-General. There are other acts which require a fiat before criminal prosecutions can be started. That is another facet of the extremely various duties which the Law Officers have to perform,
The question as to whether those duties are capable of being performed efficiently in full by the two Law Officers is perhaps a matter for investigation, but I see one grave difficulty in regard to the suggestion that there should be no fees for Law Officers. As the law stands at present, the successful party in litigation is entitled to costs, and it would raise some difficulty in regard to the enforcement of the law if the Government were successful and were in the position of having paid no fees to their advocates when they happened to be Law Officers. The whole matter is one of considerable


difficulty and certainly requires the most careful consideration, but until a decision, upon consideration, has been arrived at, bearing in mind the multifarious work of the Law Officers, there seems no necessity for any change to be made in remuneration.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 210.

Division No. 203.]
AYES.
[5.30 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hollins, A.
Rowson, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sanders, W. S.


Banfield, J. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton. T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kirby, B. V.
Silkin, L.


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Leonard, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
McEntee. V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hen. Sir Stafford
MacLaren, A.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Marshall, F.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Mathers, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maxton, J.
Viant S. P


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Messer, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Montague, F.
Walker. J.


Dobbie, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Hackney, S.)
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Muff, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.




Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, W.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gibbins, J.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Potts, J.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Errington, E.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Channon, H.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Everard, W. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Foot, D. M.


Assheton, R.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Fox, Sir G. W. G


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Colfox, Major W. P.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Furness, S. N.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Bernays, R. H.
Cox, H. B. T.
Granville, E. L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Crooke, J. S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Blair, Sir R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Bossom, A. C
Cross, R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Boulton, W. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crowder, J. F. E.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
De la Bère, R.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Brass, Sir W.
Denville, Alfred
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Doland, G. F.
Guy, J. C. M.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Bull, B. B.
Dunglass, Lord
Harbord, A.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Eckersley, P. T.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Carver, Major W. H.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Cary, R. A.
Elmley, Viscount
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Emery, J. F.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Higgs, W. F.




Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Moreing, A. C.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Morgan, R. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Holdsworth, H.
Munro, P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Holmes, J. S.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hulbert, N. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Storey, S.


Hunter, T.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Petherick, M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Keeling, E. H.
Pilkington, R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H.


Latham, Sir P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Leckie, J. A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W,


Lees-Jones, J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Remer, J. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Levy, T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Turton, R. H.


Lewis, O.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wakefield, W. W.


Lindsay, K. M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lloyd, G. W.
Rowlands, G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Watt, G. S. H.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wayland, Sir W. A


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
White, H. Graham


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mander, G. le M.
Sandys, E. D.
Wise, A. R.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Savery, Sir Servington
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Markham, S. F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wright, Squadron Loader J. A. C.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Captain Hope and Mr. Munro.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(4) "No payment shall be made to any person under this section who is engaged in business as director of a public company or in private practice in a profession.
This Amendment involves a matter of high principle, which I am sure the House will desire to consider in an objective spirit. I have no one particularly in mind and I will not mention any names, but it seems to me clear that now that we are raising salaries to a full and adequate scale, Members of the Government, whether in the Cabinet or not, will be expected to make it a full-time job and should not be permitted to hold any directorships, public or private, or continue to practise in any profession in which they may be engaged. Hon. Members may think that that principle is in practice at the present time and always has been. To a considerable extent that is so. It is well known that the Prime Minister on the appointment of Ministers asks for the resignation of directorships. That rule has been established for a considerable period, and I am moving the Amendment mainly for the purpose of getting a definite expression of the Government's view on the matter. It is moved in no hostile spirit, but in the public interest.
My information is—I may be wrong—that this rule has not been applied all-round in every case. I understand that there have been cases—I have more than one in mind—of persons engaged in practice as a solicitor and being either Members of the Cabinet or Ministers outside the Cabinet, being permitted—I have no doubt with the full knowledge and permission of the Prime Minister—to carry on their profession to some extent to see clients and to give advice. That was done, I am sure, with the best intentions, but I hardly think that in the circumstances in which we are considering this Bill it ought to be permitted in the future. I made some inquiries into one particular case. One of my predecessors in the representation of Wolverhampton, Sir Henry Fowler, was a solicitor and a Member of several Cabinets, but it was always his practice, while he remained a partner—there is no objection to that—never to see clients and never to engage in the everyday work of his profession.
There is a feeling, held by a good many people, that what I am describing has been taking place, no doubt on a very limited scale. It may have been thought that it is rather hard on a man to prevent him from seeing a few select clients, but that is not the point. I submit very strongly


that it is desirable that the Government, if they cannot see their way to accept the Amendment, and put the matter beyond dispute, should make a specific declaration that as far as this Government is concerned no Member, whether in the Cabinet or outside it, will be allowed to continue any directorship or to continue the practice of the profession in which he is engaged. I desire again to make it clear that I do not wish to bring in the personal element or to say that anybody has done anything wrong. I am merely suggesting that the practice in the future should be on the lines that I have endeavoured to indicate.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.42 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member has raised this question in very reasonable terms and I do not make any complaint of his having brought it forward. The question, manifestly, is not one which would be dealt with by the provisions of this Bill, although it is legitimate for the hon. Member to raise it in this way. If the view were that no Minister in any circumstances should be in any way engaged in one or other of the ways suggested, nobody would wish to say that he could do these things, provided he did not take the particular salary which this Act of Parliament gives him. If doing these things is not consistent with the duty of a Minister, he must not do them. It is not a question of whether he is or is not prepared to sacrifice a particular ministerial salary in order to avail himself of opportunities which otherwise he ought not to enjoy. As a matter of form nobody would seek to deal with this matter by a provision in the present but I am not on that ground seeking to shirk the question, which the hon. Member has raised more as a matter of importance and principle than as anything connected with this Bill.
This question has come up from time to time and has been the subject of pronouncements by the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister is not here at the moment and I am taking his place. I would recall to the House that the proposition, which has been reaffirmed again and again, goes back to the time of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The last time it was raised was in December, 1935, when the then Prime Minister, whom for

the moment we must call Sir Stanley Baldwin, said:
As regards directorships, the rule was laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in answer to a question on 20th March, 1906, in the following words:
'The condition which was laid down on the formation of the Government was that all directorships must be resigned except in the case of honorary directorships, directorships in connection with philanthropic undertakings, and directorships in private companies. This rule has been observed by all subsequent Governments, and is still in force. As regards the other activities, no necessity has ever arisen to supplement with specific rules the traditional standards of public life in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Ioth December, 1935; col. 731, Vol. 307.]
These principles are, I think, fairly easy to explain, and I should certainly include three. In the first place, it is plain that in no circumstances must a man who holds the position of a Minister ever allow himself to be in such a situation that his public duty will conflict with his private interests. That is a principle which we should all affirm, and honestly try to observe, but it is of immense importance in the case of Ministers because they have exceptional means of information. The second principle is that no man should allow himself to occupy any portion of the time which he is bound to devote to his public duties in a disregard of his public duties, and pursue any private interest whatever, whether it is in playing golf or in the nature of business. The third principle is that inasmuch as the secrets of the Government are specially in charge of Cabinet Ministers, no Minister, and particularly no Cabinet Minister, must in any circumstances put himself in a position where he is not able to be the complete guardian of those secrets without any possibility of any private interests being served through a knowledge of those secrets. The hon. Member asked me for a specific assurance on these matters.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. Member is aware that I notified the Prime Minister that I was going to put these points.

Sir J. Simon: I am speaking for the Prime Minister, and I doubt very much whether these matters are really capable of being put into an exact code. The hon. Member mentioned what must obviously be an exception. He was not suggesting that a man who became a Minister and who was in private life a


partner in a partnership, should dissolve the partnership. In my own profession a barrister is essentially a single individual interest. I have not and could not have any partner; but there are many professions in which partnership is almost a necessity, and to require a man to dissolve a partnership would be going beyond anything we could reasonably require. It may be that it is a matter which should be carefully considered, having regard to the fact that a man may desire to return to his profession, but if hon. Members will think out the case they will see that it is not a matter for laying down precise rules. I have had a talk with the Prime Minister, and he authorises me to say that the rule laid down by Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, and adopted and applied since that time by various successive Prime Ministers, is the rule to-day and will be accepted by him as such.
I think that, in fact, does meet the case of the hon. Member, and I would deprecate the use of this Debate for the purpose of trying, almost impromptu, to put forward more precise definitions. I do not know whether a man who is mostly associated with the co-operative society ought or ought not to dissociate himself from the company, but I do know that when a man is connected with business enterprises outside before he becomes a Minister of the Crown, when he becomes a Minister he has to put that before all others; that he must not allow any portion of the time which he owes to the discharge of his public duties to be given to the discharge of his private interests; that he must never be in the position where his public and private interests conflict, and must never allow any information which comes his way to be used for the purpose of any private benefit.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the specific point as to whether it would be in order for a Minister to see clients as a solicitor? That is an important point.

Mr. T. Smith: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that a Minister must resign any directorships of public companies but that he can remain on the board of a private company?

Sir J. Simon: I believe there have been such cases. The rule which has always

been laid down on the formation of a Government is that:
All directorships held by Ministers must be resigned except in the case of honorary directorships, directorships in connection with philanthropic undertakings, and directorships in private companies. … As regards the other activities, no necessity has ever arisen to supplement with specific rules the traditional standards of public life in this country.
I do not think that I can give any specific ruling on the point raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I apprehend that in any such possible case the Minister would not hold himself available for the purpose of new business, but, on the other hand, I should be slow to say that a gentleman standing high in my profession who had the guardianship of a child, or was the executor of a trust, is bound to throw aside these duties. I am convinced that these matters are to be determined not by an explicit and precise list of negatives but by saying that all honourable men are to be trusted in the discharge of their public duties. If they act dishonourably there is no country where they will be more certain to be found out than in this country.

5.55 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: My hon. Friend has raised a simple question, to which I think we should have an explicit reply. It has been the tradition that a Cabinet Minister should not engage in a trade or profession. Has it been held that a man can practise as a solicitor? Obviously, if he is the guardian of a child or the executor of a trust he will be allowed to continue that work. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a ruling on the point. We have had a ruling that Members of the Cabinet must not write articles for newspapers for profit. That principle was laid down some time ago by Sir Stanley Baldwin. But, there again, articles on philosophy or on the Greek poets are articles to which no one would take any objection; articles on politics for profit, I understand, are most undesirable under the ruling of Sir Stanley Baldwin. I hope we shall have a clear ruling on this specific point for the guidance of this and future Parliaments.

5.56 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I would point out that the position of a solicitor is rather different from anything else. You have to take out a practising certificate and in


the case of a Minister when leaving office he would have to take out another practising certificate. Even if you do not go near your office for months you are still a practising solicitor. I take out my practising certificate, but I have no interest in my firm at all. I have to take out my practising certificate simply because I am a trustee or the guardian of a child, and if some one comes to the Lobby to see me I am technically practising and, therefore, I must have a practising certificate. It would be a great hardship for a young man entering the Government to have to give up his practising certificate because when he retires he would have to put his name on the roll again and get permission to practise; and that is a troublesome thing to do.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I am a little worried about this. I am ready to accede the point that in proper cases some things are much better done by rules of honour than by rules of law. If that is so, the rules of honour must be fairly clear, and, what is more important, must be observed with the greatest good faith. The hon. Member has asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for guidance on a particular matter in which rules of honour obtain; and we are not to get it. As the matter has been raised it should not be left in doubt. It would be much better that it should be a rule of law. If a barrister is asked by a firm of solicitors to appoint a consultation and when the solicitor comes into the room he finds that he is also a Minister of the Crown, what is he to think? When we ask what the Government think is the right and proper thing to do, they will not tell us—and it worries me very much. As to the practising certificate I understand and sympathise with the hon. Member for the Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), but I hope that no rule of honour or rule of law will be construed to say that a gentleman who is doing a single minute's work as a solicitor whilst Minister of the Crown should not take out a new certificate.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to give any proposition he is maintaining at the moment an air of great plausibility, but on this occasion he has not been successful in convincing

the House. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to base his objection to the Amendment on two grounds; first, that it was inappropriate to include it in the present Bill; and, secondly, that if it were appropriate on grounds of relevancy, it would be better not to include it on the ground that it is best left to the honour of the individual concerned. I could understand the validity of the argument that honour should be the test if there were no definition, but If there is to be some definition, I think it ought to be comprehensive.
The Debate has tended to concentrate on the case of solicitors, but there is a number of other cases which have come to the notice of the House in the past. For example, a member of another place, although he resigned his directorship, continued to draw emoluments as a member of the London committee of the board, and was not precluded from discharging those functions or drawing that salary either by a rule of honour or by a more explicit rule. There is the further case where a managing director has in his service agreement a provision that if he should at any time cease to be managing director, he should become general manager of the firm. I think it is not fair to the Ministers concerned to leave these definitions vague and lax, and if we are to have any rules at all, those rules, while it may be impossible to make them completely comprehensive, should be so comprehensive as to include all the more ordinary examples of a breach of the spirit of the custom of the land.
We have, for example, frequently found it necessary to question the Prime Minister on the rights of Ministers to contribute articles to the Press, and the Prime Minister originally—I believe in response to a question which I asked in 1925 with reference to the late Lord Birkenhead—laid down a rule that they should not. That rule appeared to be kept for some years, but then breaches began to be made in it and Ministers began to write books and articles in newspapers on subjects other than politics, until, when a further question was asked, the Prime Minister had to revise his definition as to what articles Ministers were permitted to contribute to the Press, and allow them to contribute on subjects other than politics. There again doubts have arisen.
I notice that the Lord Chief Justice of England who, although he is not a Minister of the Crown, occupies a position which should be subject to similar, if not greater, restrictions, contributes articles which, although prima facie not connected with politics, deal with questions of licensing and quasi-political subjects. Articles on such subjects will present equal difficulties if they are written by Cabinet Ministers. Therefore, I maintain that there can be no more suitable occasion for pressing for a closer definition of what Ministers may do than on the consideration of a Bill which is providing those Ministers with their emoluments. I believe there is a service agreement which always prescribes the terms of appointment, and I think it would be admirable if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the opportunity, either here or in another place, if not to include a code in this Bill, at any rate to make it more explicit and cause it to be known to Ministers as a whole.

6.5 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think the Chancellor has very much assisted in the solution of this problem by the observations which he has made. The difficulties of the problem are clear. With reference to the case of solicitors, which has been cited, I would like to bring to the notice of the House a conversation which I had upon the matter with the late Sir Donald Maclean when he was appointed President of the Board of Education. He then discussed with me at great length the exact position in which he found himself as regards his practice as a solicitor, and he was in great difficulty to know exactly what he ought not to do. There were cases of trusteeship and executorship, there were, I think, cases of guardianship, there were cases where he had for many years advised elderly ladies as regards their estates, and other cases, of course, where he was advising big companies, and so on. From what he told me, he certainly found the greatest difficulty in ascertaining how, where and what line should be drawn. As long as a solicitor is allowed to continue in his practice in any way, that difficulty of drawing a line will inevitably occur. Some people will draw it on the more

liberal side and some on the more conservative side.
The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has pointed out the difficulty as regards the practising certificate. Let me give him an analogous case. He will appreciate that when someone is appointed for a term as official arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land Act, he is almost always a partner in a firm of surveyors, and he has to relinquish his partnership as long as he holds that position. He has completely to give up his practice in order that he may not have even an air of being associated with any firm that might conceivably be concerned in any matter before him. If in a comparatively minor position compared with that of a Cabinet Minister a rule of that nature is imposed, surely there is not any hardship that could not be overcome in imposing a similar rule as regards the practice of a Cabinet Minister. It might be a little difficult to get a practising certificate again, but it is very difficult to become a Cabinet Minister, and I think one can legitimately say that when someone has climbed to the eminence and responsibility of being a Cabinet Minister, it is not a very great hardship if, when he ceases to hold that office, he has to get a practising certificate again.
My own experience has been similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), and I have had another experience. In a case I have read through correspondence between the solicitors of the parties, a large portion of which was signed by a Minister of the Crown. I am not saying whether that was right or wrong; all I am pointing out is that it is a very difficult and embarrassing situation for an individual to be told that he may carry on his position, but must be careful and must not do anything outside certain limits. He may think he is doing something which is quite all right, but someone else outside may say that it is all wrong and ought not to allowed. He may think that he is doing something merely as an executor or a trustee, but imperceptibly it may merge into some form of contentious action. He may be unable to drop it; it may seem to him to be unfair to the people concerned for him to drop it; he may allow it to go on for a week or two and then quite unconsciously he may overstep some limit.
I suggest that in those conditions there is really only one safe rule, and it is that a person who is a Member of the Cabinet should not be a practising solicitor. I suggest that there is no real hardship in such a case, any more than there is hardship in telling a man who has spent his life as a director of a company, in which he has been solely interested, about which he is highly skilled and has great knowledge and competence, that he must give up that directorship altogether. It may be that he will never get back to that directorship. It depends upon who controls the company after he finishes being a Cabinet Minister as to whether he will get back again. That is the price which is paid in order that it may be absolutely apparent that there can be no conflict of interests. It is not merely a question of whether there is conflict, but whether anybody may think there is a conflict. Although I appreciate that this is not the place in which it could be put, I press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether it would not be better to say outright that the Government of the country recognises that people who are Cabinet Ministers cannot also be practising professional men.

6.10 p.m.

Sir R. Tasker: I support the views stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and.the attitude of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was not logical in his remarks. He said that Members of the Cabinet should not act as solicitors or professional men because they are paid as Cabinet Ministers. If he holds that view, surely it would be logical for him to say that no Member of the House ought to act in his profession as long as he is in receipt of remuneration of £400 a year.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I have no desire to press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give an assurance that the matter will be further considered and a statement made by the Prime Minister in due course.

Sir J. Simon: I cannot, of course, give any assurance of what may eventually be done. I think we have had a very reasonably conducted Debate on what is a very difficult matter, and I have no doubt that the observations that have

been made by various hon. Members will be most carefully considered.

Mr. Mander: In view of that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave., withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Additional salaries to Cabinet Ministers, who hold offices at salaries less than, five thousand a year.)

6.13 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "or Part III."
I am moving this Amendment and the following Amendment in order to meet a criticism which was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and also by hon. Members below the Gangway when the Bill was considered in Committee. It was pointed out that the language of Clause 3, Sub-section (3), might almost seem to be encouraging an enlargement of the Cabinet, in that if the officers referred to in that Sub-section are counted up, they come to as many as nine. The Ministers of the Crown named in Part II are four in number; the Minister mentioned in Part III —the Minister of Pensions—and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster bring the number to six, and there might conceivably be three Ministers under Section 2 of the Re-election of Ministers Act, 1919. I think I state correctly the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith when I say that he pointed out that if we were, in Subsection (3) of this Clause, to refer to another nine Ministers as though they were also in the rota, as it were, to be brought within the Cabinet, it would rather seem to encourage the view that the Cabinet should be larger still.
I would say for myself that I think that would not be a happy development, and I dare say it will have been observed by hon. Members that the number of the present Cabinet is 21, whereas the previous Cabinet consisted of 22. I tried to see how I could meet the difficulty in this case, and I now suggest to the House that it can best be met by leaving out the reference to the Minister of Pensions. It seems to me that unless we have some other disaster similar to that which resulted in the creation of the Ministry of Pensions 20 years ago, it is difficult to see how that post can gain


in importance. Consequently I feel that it should be left out of this provision.
In the same way I suggest that we should leave out the reference to the Re-election of Ministers Act, 1919, because if ever an appointment were made under that Act, of course the conditions of the appointment would have to be settled at the time. These changes would have the effect of reducing the number of cases mentioned in the Subsection from nine to five. I am glad to be able to make that proposal because I recollect that my hon. and learned Friend opposite said that to reduce the number to three would be too drastic, and that he considered that four or five would be a reasonable number. That is the nature of the Amendment. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite and also hon. Members below the Gangway may be disposed to agree with it and to make this change in the Bill—which I think will be to its advantage—without much discussion.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I willingly accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said upon this Amendment and I think he has met the point which I raised. May I say, however, that I think the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently used language which would suggest that we were dealing here with something which limited the size of the Cabinet? We are dealing with something which might indirectly achieve that end, but what we are actually doing is to limit the number of people in the Cabinet who are to receive salaries of a certain figure.

Sir J. Simon: That is correct and I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed it out. I only mentioned that aspect of the matter, because I think some objection was raised to the original proposal on that ground.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 27, leave out from the beginning to "if" in line 28.—[Sir J. Simon.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Salary of Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury and pensions to persons who have been Prime Minister.)

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, after "Minister," to insert:

for a period or periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than six months.
The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the pension which is to be paid to a person who has been Prime Minister is to be paid to him, not merely because of the fact that he has attained that office, but for the services rendered by him while holding that office. The distinction is this. If the mere attainment of that high office justified a pension it would mean that the pension would really be paid for services rendered by the person concerned, possibly just as a Member of this House and certainly as holding other positions in the Government than that of Prime Minister. If that view were taken, I hold that the proposal to grant a pension would not be justified. It can and sometimes does happen that a man serves the House for many years and holds high office in the State with great credit for many years and yet does not ultimately attain the office of Prime Minister. Such a person would not qualify for this pension. A striking example is afforded by the family of the present Prime Minister. His father and his brother were both Members of this House for very long periods and held high office with great credit for long periods, but neither of them under this Bill would qualify for this pension.
It seems to me, therefore, that we should make it clear that it is not in respect of anything done before the person attains the office of Prime Minister that this pension is to be granted. If it is to be granted only in respect of what the person does while he is Prime Minister, then it does not seem unreasonable that some provision should be included to the effect that the person receiving the pension must have held that office for a certain period. Suppose that a minority Government were defeated in the House on some important issue. The defeated Prime Minister might advise His Majesty to appoint as his successor the leader of one of the other parties in the House. The new Prime Minister on meeting the House might in his turn be defeated and go to the country. If his party were not successful at the election someone else would have to take over the office of Prime Minister and thus the office might have been held only for a week or two, or even for a few days.
I submit that if the pension were payable in such a case as that, it could not


be held to be in respect of services rendered as Prime Minister. It ought to be made clear that the reason why the House assents to this pension in the case of the Prime Minister only and not in the case of other Ministers, is because we feel that the burden of responsibility of that office is something heavier and different in degree from the responsibility borne by other Ministers. I cannot think that a claim to such a pension in those circumstances could be maintained, unless the office had been held for a reasonable period of time.
I recognise the difficulty of suggesting any specific period. In the Committee stage I suggested a period of two years, but it was represented to me by several hon. Members who sympathised with the idea of that Amendment, that the period was too long. I have, in this case, proposed a period of six months, but I am not wedded to any particular period. I think it desirable, however, that we should lay it down that this pension is in respect of services rendered as Prime Minister and that the office must have been held for a reasonable period if the holder is to qualify for the pension. It is not an unusual suggestion. It is the general practice where pensions are granted. I have no doubt that precedents to the contrary could be found, but the only one I have been able to discover is the case of the Lord Chancellor, and I understand that the legal sanction in that case goes back over 100 years. I could not, however, find any recent case in which a pension has been granted without any specification as to the period of service. If the Minister who is to reply feels that he cannot at the moment accept this Amendment, will he promise that the matter will be seriously considered with a view to the insertion of some such words as these when the Bill goes to another place?

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the situation under the Bill as it stands is that Ministers other than the Prime Minister have to prove poverty before they can obtain pensions, but in the case of the Prime Minister no question of proving poverty is involved. A Prime Minister may have attained his high office very rapidly. There are cases

on record, I believe, of men having risen to that office after comparatively few years of Ministerial rank. In other cases, some of which are represented in this House now, people have been Ministers, off and so, for 20 and 30 and even, I believe, 40 years, but they would be entitled to no pension at all unless they proved poverty, never having been Prime Minister. In this case we propose to give a pension of £2,000 a year to a person who has been Prime Minister, even if he has held that office for only a very short time. I think it right that we should provide that he must have held office for a certain period—whether six months is the correct period or not, I am not sure—before he is entitled to receive the pension.

6.27 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) for the very pleasant personal reference which he made to me earlier in the Debate. I assure him that like all Members of this House I appreciate those little courtesies. May I begin my remarks upon this Amendment by a statement which is also of a slightly personal character. In common with other senior Members of the House, when I sat on the back benches I was consulted by the the then Prime Minister, Sir Stanley Baldwin, as to my views on the main features of this Bill. That I think is a very proper procedure in the case of a Bill which essentially affects the House of Commons. It is right in such cases that the Prime Minister should seek the opinions of senior Members of the House and one of the points which was put to those of us who were asked, in a very informal manner, to give our opinions was whether there was a feeling in the House in favour of the proposal for a pension for the Prime Minister. I expressed the opinion that there was a strong feeling in favour of such a proposal. I pointed out that there had been cases in previous years where an ex-Prime Minister had been placed in a position of some difficulty by reason of not possessing a pension. I said I thought it most undesirable that an ex-Prime Minister should, by reason of his financial position, be compelled to take part in activities of a certain kind and I think there is general agreement on those lines.
The only point we have to consider and indeed the only point which arises on the Amendment is whether a time limit of service should be imposed, that is to say, whether a right hon. Gentleman should have to hold this high office for a certain number of months before he can get a pension. I have two observations to make on that point, and the first is this: Under our Constitution, which differs so essentially from the Constitution of many Continental countries, and especially the one great country which I have in mind, changes of Government and changes of Prime Minister, and indeed short Parliaments, are very much more the exception than the rule. There has been in fact, so far as I can recollect, no case for a great many years in which a Prime Minister has held office for a period of only six months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bonar Law!"] No, he held office for about nine months, I think. The cases contemplated by my hon. Friends are most unlikely to arise, but even if such a case did arise, I cannot find myself in agreement with the argument put forward that it would be desirable that the pension should be withheld from an ex-Prime Minister in such a position. After all, a man does not attain to the office of Prime Minister without years of effort and stress, years of patient work. This applies to every Prime Minister of every party. He has to be of great parliamentary merit and an exceptional person in every sense of the word, and assuming that a man who has attained the office of Prime Minister finds himself, after some six months of office, smitten by a serious illness which does not kill him, but disables him for the rest of his life from active service in this House, would my hon. Friends contend that in those circumstances it would be right to withhold from him the pension for an office that other Prime Ministers, more fortunately placed in matters of health, had been able to hold for four or five years?
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government would consider the matter between now and the passage of the Bill in another place. Naturally, any Government would consider any arguments that might be advanced, but I would point out that this proposal was considered in formal consultation, very care-

fully, by the Cabinet, and it does not seem right to make a differentiation of the kind that is proposed in this Amendment between a man who holds office for months and a man who holds office for years. I agree that no one would want anyone to get a pension for no reason at all, but it is because the position of the Prime Minister is exceptional that the House is asked to pay this pension on his retirement. In the circumstances it does not seem wise or fair, for the reasons which I have mentioned, that there should be any time limit imposed, and I cannot think that there is anything but the remotest chance of the circumstances which my hon. Friends contemplate arising at all.

Mr. Petherick: Can my right hon. Friend answer this hypothetical point? At what point does a Minister become Prime Minister? Supposing he is sent for by His Majesty and asked to form a Cabinet, is he Prime Minister from that point? Supposing he is unable to form a Cabinet, what is the situation then? Is he entitled to a pension as an ex-Prime Minister?

6.35 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: This is a point that was referred to on the Second Reading. My hon. Friend will observe that the words in the Bill are not "Prime Minister," but "Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury," and the constitutional practice is that, although it may be that the Sovereign invites someone to be Prime Minister and to form a Cabinet, and he then kisses hands, that is to say, accepts the commission to do this, he is not sworn in as First Lord of the Treasury until after the Cabinet has been formed. The work is completed, and when he has accepted this office under the Crown, along with his colleagues, he takes the oath. Therefore, I think the point does not arise.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Salary of Leader of Opposition.)

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This point was discussed at quite considerable length on the Committee stage, and I am not going to detain the House over it very long now, but in the view of


my hon. Friends and myself this is one of the most controversial points in the Bill and raises, as we think, the most novel and difficult considerations. Briefly to summarise our objections to this Clause, they are these: In the first place, an annual sum of public money is to be paid away without any form of effective public control, because it is proposed here that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition shall be placed on the Consolidated Fund, and the only way in which Parliament would be able to touch that salary in future would be by some form of fresh legislation. Secondly, there is the objection, or so it appears to us, as to the persons by whom this money is going to be paid, or in whose gift it will be. I have read through with some care the arguments that have been advanced from both Front Benches in support of this proposal, and it seemed to me that, in supporting it, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), on the Second Reading in fact advanced what is the most cogent argument against it. This is what he said:
We are prepared to accept the principle of some allowance being paid to the Leader of the Opposition to meet expenses necessarily incurred in the carrying out of his duties as Leader of the Opposition. That would not mean that he would be the slave of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or his successor. It would not impair his freedom in any way, because the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition does not reside on the Government side of the House. It resides here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like Mr. Speaker's.") Except that the Leader of the Opposition is not appointed by the whole House, as Mr. Speaker is appointed. But he is appointed by the Members who, for the time being, sit on this side of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1937; col. 660, Vol. 322.]
That is a perfectly accurate statement of the position as it will exist if this proposal becomes law, and it seems to us to be a position which is open to all sorts of objections. To put it briefly, this is the first time that in any Statute we shall have recognised the existence of a party caucus. I am not drawing distinctions in this matter, and I hope hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House will realise it, between one party and another, because there are changes from time to time and different parties occupy the Front Bench above the Gangway on the Opposition side, but we have never before placed this considerable sum of money within the gift of a

party organisation. I have read, not only the reasons given by the spokesman of the official Opposition, but also the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on the Second Reading, said:
If we had not payment of Members I could understand the question arising as to whether or not it was suitable that this amount should be paid to any member of the Opposition, but when we have payment of Members which is equally shared by Members of the House, except Ministers of the Crown who do not get salary as Members of Parliament and salary as Ministers, it cannot be a wrong principle that the Member of the Opposition who has the heaviest duties, who gives the most constant attendance and is absolutely essential to the working of the House, should receive a higher salary. That is the proposal which we make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1937; col. 650. Vol. 322.]
That is all that was said in justification of this proposal in introducing the Bill. That is to say, there were three tests that were applied to differentiate the Leader of the official Opposition from other private Members in this House. They were, firstly, that he had to carry out heavier duties; secondly, that he had to put in more constant attendance; and, thirdly, that his presence and action were essential to the working of the House. But there are a great many hon. Members to whom those same considerations apply. It may be that they do not apply in the same degree, but they do apply. Take, for instance, hon. Members who perform an essential function in the working of our legislative system of which not very much is heard, hon. Members, I mean, who preside over private Bill Committees and who receive no sort of reward whatever for so doing. Take again those hon. Members who spend many hours presiding over Standing Committees upstairs. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) will appreciate this point. They also perform an invaluable function, if I may say so, and one without which it would be impossible for the work of this House to go on. So the test applies to them as well. Take also those who occupy important positions which require a standard of regular attendance, such as the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
All these people fulfil precisely the three tests I have mentioned, in that they perform heavier duties than ordinary Members, are required to be in more constant attendance, and do work which is essential for the proper functioning of this House. If it is a sound proposal to give this special remuneration to the Member who happens to be Leader of the largest party in Opposition, there are equally good arguments for giving some higher remuneration than the average private Member receives to all those persons whom I have mentioned. It seems to us that it is very difficult to say from what part of the House the real opposition is going to come at any particular time. Sometimes the strongest opposition to a proposal comes from above the Gangway, sometimes we think, at any rate, it comes from us, sometimes it comes, as it has done on many occasions, from the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or other hon. Members who sit on that side of the House, as happened only a few days ago. You never know in this House from what quarter the real effective opposition is going to blow up, and it seems to me to be an objection to this proposal that you should differentiate in this way.
We have at present an Opposition party which is much larger than any other Opposition party in this House. I am not speaking of the future of any particular party, but nobody supposes, I imagine, that that is always going to be the case, and, as has been pointed out before, there have been occasions in the past, and there will no doubt be occasions again, when you will get parties outside the ranks of the Government supporters which may be very nearly equal in numbers and influence to those supporters. For these reasons it seems to us that there are serious objections to which no proper reply has been made. Let me make it clear that we are not under-estimating in any way the value of the work that is done by hon. Members who sit in the Opposition. We were gratified on the last occasion when we heard the Home Secretary say that those who are in Opposition are discharging valuable public functions. I look forward to repeating the words he used on that occasion on a good many occasions in the next week or two.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith: I beg to second the Amendment.
None of us here has any personal feelings with regard to the immediate effect of this Clause. If anybody is to get a salary under this proposal I would sooner see it given to the present Leader of the Opposition than to anyone else. I am sure he thoroughly deserves it. This is a matter of principle, and my objection to it is that it is unduly taking the two-party system as if it were something holy and established in our constitution by choosing out the leader of one party who happens to be the next strongest to that of the Government, and giving him a kind of official status. It is representing something which does not exist in our politics to-day. I think that our politics are changing, and that we may well come to a system of many parties and of parties more equally divided than they are to-day. I am not speaking only of this party. The party in front of me represented at the moment by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) are performing an essential and valuable service in the House, and their constant attendance here and the burden put on them are something which along these lines might very well be rewarded. I do not see why only one person should be rewarded. The deputy-leader of the Opposition might very well complain. Along these lines all the party in front of me consisting of whips, the leader and the deputy-leader, might find themselves provided by the State with a salary.
I suggest that this is not the right way to treat an opposition. I should be glad to feel that the Leader of the Opposition was always in a position of some independence and was not worried by sordid financial cares from day to day, but that can be provided for almost always by the efforts of his own supporters. If that is done he will be in a much more comfortable and independent position, and he will be beholden to nobody. I think that they will be proud and able to do it. I am not thinking for a moment that the independence of the present Leader of the Opposition will be sapped or undermined if he were in receipt of this salary, but I do think that it is an undesirable and unnecessary principle to introduce. It is based upon a wrong constitutional theory, and it ought to be rejected.

6.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Member who moved this Amendment said, this matter was debated at considerable length on the Second Reading and Committee stages. I want to steer a somewhat delicate course between giving full and proper recognition to the fact that it has already been debated and paying sufficient courtesy to the arguments which have been re-advanced by the two hon. Members who have spoken. The Amendment raises one of those questions on which everyone must recognise arguments can be developed with apparent force in more than one direction. It can be said for example, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, that this proposal puts a sum of money into the gift of a party organisation. That sounds very dreadful, but could not one say very nearly the same thing about the office of Prime Minister? The man whom a party chooses to be its leader is, if the party gets a majority, the man who will be sent for by the King.

Mr. Foot: Surely he is paid as a Minister of the Crown, and not as a party leader.

The Attorney-General: That is the sort of debating point which the hon. Member was seeking to argue, but if one considers how our constitutional and party system works there is not a great deal of sting in that point. The hon. Member went on to point out that there were others, such as the Chairmen of Committees, whose services were essential to the proper functioning of this House. From one point of view, I do not think we need be afraid to say that we are all essential to the proper functioning of this House. Whether we are Ministers of the Crown, Chairmen of Committees, members of Committees or ordinary private Members, the proper working of the House depends in varying degree on the energy and time of all its Members.
It seems to me we have to approach this proposal bearing two facts in mind. The first is that the House has adopted the principle for a number of years that it is in the interests of the public that a payment should be made to Members of the House as such, that is to say, irrespective of whether they are filling a Ministerial position or not. That system has existed for some years and nobody

suggests it should be altered. It involves one of the principles which is embodied in the proposal immediately under discussion. The second point is that, although you can argue how essential the functions of Chairmen of Standing Committees are, under our constitution as it has developed so far, the Leader of the Opposition is in a special position, and because of the peculiar position of responsibility which is thrown on him we are justified in the provision made in this Clause. There are many cases in which the Leader of the Opposition in the past has been an ex-Prime Minister. If a party which has held office is defeated and another Government is formed, the man who has been Prime Minister will normally, unless he retires on grounds of age or ill-health or because he goes to another place, be the Leader of the Opposition. In that case, of course, he will get his pension under this Bill and this provision will not arise.
Take the case where a Leader of the Opposition is not an ex-Prime Minister. I do not want to encourage any hopes, which I believe will be false, in hon. Gentlemen opposite, but in that case he is a potential Prime Minister, or a potential probable Prime Minister. That is to say, if there is an election and the party in opposition gets a majority, normally the Leader of the Opposition would be sent for by His Majesty, and on him the responsibility of forming an administration and carrying on the Government of the country as Prime Minister would fall. Therefore, the Leader of an Opposition, if our institutions continue to work as they have in the past, is a potential Prime Minister. He is chosen, as I understand it, as the man whom his party would desire to be Prime Minister should they get a majority. That does seem in these circumstances to give him a special position. Is it not, therefore, desirable that a party, when considering on whom their choice should fall, should know that he would be relieved from all anxiety of a financial kind? I am not suggesting that it would be likely that a man who has got to that position would say, "Unless special provision is made for me, I cannot lead the party." but there are cases in which the fact that this provision has been made might make it much easier for a man to be elected as a party leader.
When he is actually chosen as Leader of the Opposition and comes to this House, he has very special calls made on his time. I speak in the presence of one right hon. Gentleman who has lead an Opposition, and I say that not only has he to be in constant attendance at Debates—and we cannot but admire the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has fulfilled that part of his functions—but there is a good deal of work in studying Bills and questions which are likely to arise which he has to do. No one else has to do that to anything like the same extent. He is constantly from day to day having to settle the main lines which his party is to take on different questions; he has to keep himself informed on all questions, not only on the Bills that come before the House but on foreign affairs as well. He cannot delegate even to his Front Bench colleagues decisions as to what line his party is to take on important matters as they arise. Looked at from a commonsense point of view—although you can say, if the Leader of the Opposition, why not X, Y, Z? —it is incontrovertible that a Leader of an Opposition is in a very special position as regards the demands on his time, a position unlike that of any other Member of the House outside those who hold the most responsible positions in the Government itself.
I am not attempting to repeat the reasons put forward by Sir Stanley Baldwin in Committee, but simply considerations which differentiate the Leader of the Opposition from other Members. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. K. Griffith) looked forward to a future—I do not know whether he looked forward to it or not—but predicted a future in which we would have no main Opposition party. I do not know who would get up on Thursday afternoon to ask the question about Business. He thought that we would conduct our proceedings on a different basis. I am not saying that that will not happen, or that it would not be a good thing if it did happen; all that I am saying is that it has not happened. We save a good deal of valuable energy by not trying to deal with exceptional and difficult cases before they do arise, and may never arise. If the general development of our Constitution changes and we have one central national Government going on from

decade to decade and from century to century, then it may well be that we shall have to reconsider this provision in the Bill.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I was a strong supporter of this Clause until I heard the speech which has just been delivered. As it has had that effect on me, I had better say one or two words in defence of the principle, because this happened to be an occasion in the former stages of the Bill when the Government had anything like a decent majority and the only time on which they got appreciably over 100. It is not only that we are giving someone a new title, but that we are going to pay him for that new title. It is not unfair to see how Leaders of Oppositions look on these matters, and how they vote on such matters. We have several Oppositions in this House. One important one is represented by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He voted against this Clause. We all know that he has disappointments in life; he had one the other day. He is leader of his Opposition, and everything else in that Opposition. He is the Opposition to the Opposition. Then we have the most intellectual and forceful Opposition in this House, that represented by the four Members from Glasgow. They voted against the Clause. Then we have the leader of the least interesting Opposition, although the second largest, that section of the Liberal party who do not quite know where they are. Their leader voted against the Clause.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Could the hon. Member tell us how the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bére) voted?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that I cannot. My point in getting up to support the Clause is that we in this House have recognised the value of criticism for generations, the value of criticism as one of the supreme essentials of a democratic assembly. And we are laying it down in principle to-day, by giving payment to the Leader of the Opposition, that freedom of speech is a thing which we value so highly that not only the Government but the whole House will vote to maintain an Opposition in this country. We have said this officially to the whole world, and when you look across the sea to Europe and realise how completely the Oppositions


are all eliminated in certain countries it is worth while having laid it down clearly in this House that we take a particular and special view of the Opposition. Although the money is a small sum, it is in the interests of the country and the House that we pass this Clause establishing the official position of Leader of the Opposition. The official position does not matter so much; it is the acknowledgment that he is there. I hope that this Clause will stand part of the Bill; it is of real value as laying down the principle of freedom of speech.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: The speech of the Attorney-General in defence of this Clause seems to have had a peculiar effect at least on two Members. It almost converted my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) into an opponent; it certainly has confirmed me in my opposition to the Clause. One can understand why the Liberal Opposition should oppose the Clause, because envisaged in it is the assumption that there will be only two parties in this House. It assumes the continued existence of a two-party system. That seems to be the false premise on which the Attorney-General built his argument. As the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) pointed out with great force, it is quite possible to have more than two potential Prime Ministers, as the Leader of the Opposition has been described by the Attorney-General, and to have two Oppositions very nearly equal numerically. What is to be done in that case? You may have a fourth party which has an influence in the House out of all proportion to its size. When the India Bill was going through the real Opposition came from this side, and the total number of the opponents was something like 80. To pass a Cause which is founded on an assumption which may be perfectly false is not good legislation. It is difficult to understand the position of the Opposition in this matter. Their view with regard to Ministers' salaries is that they should be pooled but that there should be no increase. They were pooled to a certain extent, and now the Opposition have accepted an addition of £2,000 a year. They have accepted the principle of increasing the pool. This Clause is founded on a fallacy, and although I accept the decision which was arrived at

in Committee I could not possibly support the Clause.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: In spite of the powerful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), I hope that the Government will adhere to the Clause. As I do not happen to be a Member of the Opposition I need not answer those arguments, which he addressed to the Opposition. A good Leader of the Opposition is one of the main guarantors of the freedom of this House. Every hon. Member, whatever part of the House he sits in, largely depends on the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition for his ability to have his own voice heard on various matters. I happen to remember the manner in which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) chose to describe the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) at the beginning of the last Parliament. He described him as sitting among the ruins of Socialism after failing to lead the country to that dim Utopia consisting of one vast communal soup kitchen surrounded by innumerable municipal bathing pools. Those of us who, in the last Parliament, were new to politics, could not help admiring the inspired manner in which the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley led his small band of followers.
There was one point raised by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), which has not been answered. He suggested that by accepting the salary the Leader of the Opposition and any future Leader of the Opposition would be beholden to the Government. How can that be? How can he be beholden to anybody except those who put him there? They are the ones who elect him, not the Government. A stranger listening to this Debate might imagine from the speech of my hon. and learned Friend that the Leader of the Opposition was going to be paid by the Government and not by the State. If I may refer to Lord Snowden, this seemed to me to be the mistake contained in a famous letter which he wrote against this proposal to the "Times." If the proposal is objected to on the false ground that the Government will pay the Leader of the Opposition there should be objection also to payment of any private Member on the


Opposition side. For these reason I hope that the Government will adhere firmly to the Clause.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 26.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[7.15 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.)
Errington, E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Adamson, W. M.
Evans. E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Albery, Sir Irving
Findlay, Sir E.
Milner, Major J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H lsbr.)
Frankel, D.
Montague, F.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morgan, R. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Furness, S. N.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Assheton, R.
Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gibbins, J.
Munro, P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.


Banfield, J. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Oliver, G. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm h)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Belt, Sir A. L.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bellenger, F. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Parker, J.


Blaker, Sir R.
Grimston, R. V.
Parkinson, J. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Groves, T. E.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Petherick, M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Guy, J. C. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hannah, I. C.
Potts, J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Harbord, A.
Price, M. P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bull, B. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burke, W. A.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Reid. W. Allan (Derby)


Cape, T.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cary, R. A.
Heare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ridley, G.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Holmes, J. S.
Ritson, J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Channon, H.
Hopkin, D.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Charleton, H. C.
Hunter, T.
Rowlands, G.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Clarry, Sir Reginald
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Salmon, Sir I.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sanders, W. S.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Savery, Sir Servington


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forlar)


Cox, H. B. T.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shinwell, E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kirby, B. V.
Short, A.


Crooke, J. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Silkin, L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lees-Jones, J.
Simpson, F. B.


Crossley, A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Levy, T.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lewis, O.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Day, H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


De Chair, S. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Storey, S.


Denville, Alfred
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Doland, G. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sutcliffe, H.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Duggan, H. J.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Thurtle, E.


Dunglass, Lord
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Tinker, J. J.


Eastwood, J. F.
Maitland, A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Marshall, F.
Viant, S. P.


Emery, J. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wakefield, W. W.




Walkden, A. G.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Waterhouse, Captain C.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)



West wood, J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Whiteley, W.
Withers, Sir J. J.
Mr. Cross and Captain Dugdale.





NOES.



Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G, J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Buchanan, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Ellis, Sir G.
McGovern, J.
Stephen, C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacLaren, A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Everard, W. L.
Maxton, J.
White, H. Graham


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Windser-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Remer, J. R.



Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Holdsworth, H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Mr. Foot and Sir Hugh Seely.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F,
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

CLAUSE 10.—(Interpretation and determination of questions.)

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, at the end, to insert:
such numerical strength amounting to not less than 60 members.
The effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be that before a Leader of the Opposition could qualify for the special salary from the State proposed in this Bill he would have to show not merely that he was the leader of the largest single party in this House opposed to the Government but that that party consisted of not less than, approximately, one-tenth of the Members of this House. In legislation of this kind we should, as far as possible, provide for all contingencies, and I should like hon. Members to consider what happened in 1931. At that time the then Prime Minister appealed to the leaders of the other parties to join with him in forming a National Government supported by all parties. The majority of the Members of his own party did not see their way to supporting that proposal, but if they had done so, if the Labour party as then constituted had remained in support of the Government, and had been joined by the Conservative and Liberal parties as represented in that House, the Opposition would then have consisted only of a few independent Members and, I suppose, the three or four Members from the Clyde who follow the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Under the Bill as at present drafted the hon. Member for Bridgeton would then have become entitled to a salary as Leader of the Opposition.
The Attorney-General told us a few moments ago that in his view the real

justification for the payment of a salary to the Leader of the Opposition was that he was to be regarded as a potential Prime Minister. Does anyone suggest that in the circumstances I have outlined, circumstances which nearly arose in 1931, the hon. Member for Bridgeton could fairly have been described as a potential Prime Minister? Therefore, it seems to me the argument which the Attorney-General said was his principal argument falls to the ground. I know that he also said that in his view difficult cases would be better dealt with when they arose. I ask the House to consider what would happen if, in circumstances such as I have described, it were said, "Oh, this is a difficult case, it was never intended that the leader of only a small group should be treated as Leader of the Opposition for the purposes of this salary, and therefore we will take the salary away from him." Such a course could not be pursued, and therefore it seems to me that this safeguard, to which the Attorney-General apparently gave some weight, would not assist him in such a case. It is impossible for anybody to foretell the probable course of party strife in this country in the future, whether we shall have, as we have had in the past, two very large parties with small groups on the fringes of them, three large parties, or a number of moderate-sized parties. The principal argument used by the Attorney-General just now to justify this proposal turned on the idea that the Leader of the Opposition really was the leader of the only alternative Government, the leader of a party which, by numerical strength, was obviously more important than any other party or group of parties.
The figure which I have suggested cannot, I submit, be considered unreason-


able. It is less than one-tenth of the membership of the House. If a man desires to be regarded as the leader of the alternative Government, he should be able to count on the support of at least one-tenth of our membership. I am not particularly wedded to the figure, however; I put it, I thought, rather low. I would be willing to accept some other figure if the Government agreed to accept the principle. We should not fail to recognise the difficulty which may occur of there being no large party in Opposition at any given moment, and we should take precautions now to deal with such a situation.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Crowder: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is unfair to ask the community to pay a salary of £2,000 to a Leader of the Opposition unless he commands the support of a certain proportion of the membership. I understand that in 1931 there were 59 Labour Members and three Members of the Independent Labour party, which totalled 62. To enable the Leader of the Opposition to have the salary, the Independent Labour party would have had to agree, I presume, or some of the Liberals, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) being their leader. It would stop a good deal of log-rolling arrangements among parties if we were to lay down, once and for all, that no salary should be paid to the Leader of the Opposition unless at least 6o Members were prepared to support him. It is only fair to the community to ask for such a provision, when the majority of the country are not in the least supporting the Leader of the Opposition.

7.34 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I ask the House to reject the Amendment. I thought that the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) provided an almost overwhelming argument against it. He took the case of the 1931 Parliament, in which there were 59 Members of the Opposition. That Opposition was allowed full power as an Opposition, and if any Opposition Leader were entitled to such a provision as this it was the Leader of that Opposition, or of an Opposition in circumstances similar to those of that

time. The fewer the men the greater is the share of honour. It may also be said that the smaller the party the greater are the duties that fall upon the Leader of the Opposition. It is clearly wrong to exclude from this provision the leader of the 59 Members of the Labour party who performed those duties during the 1931 Parliament.
There were, as the hon. Member for Finchley pointed out, three Members of the Independent Labour party in that Parliament. I am not sure whether the hon. Member brought up the number of the Labour party to over 6o for the purposes of this Bill by including them, or not, but I doubt whether, if they were here, they would welcome the suggestion that they were, at any material time, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). If there is any doubt about the Amendment, we have only to imagine somebody saying to three independent Members: "If you come into our party the leader gets £2,000, but if you go out, it will cease." Rather than avoid log-rolling I should think that that kind of position would encourage it—although I am not suggesting that logrolling would take place in any circumstances, or that anybody is capable of doing it in this House. In some cases its possibilities might be explored. If we are trying to anticipate log-rolling I should have thought that that was the kind of position you would not wish to bring about, because it would be a most unfortunate state of affairs.

Mr. Lewis: Would not exactly the sameposition arise under the Bill as printed, if two parties in Opposition happened to be exactly the same size?

The Attorney-General: That is, of course, a possibiltiy which I must investigate. It might raise difficulty, but it is not the possibility which is being dealt with by the Amendment. I am dealing with the case which this Amendment is intended to cover. While appreciating the point made by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment I cannot think, particularly having regard to our history, that the Amendment would be the right way to tackle the difficulty. It might land us in a further rather objectionable position. I hope that my hon. Friends may, upon consideration, see their way not to press the Amendment.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: There is rather more in this Amendment than the Attorney-General seemed to think. He based his arguments on the fact that in the 1931–35 Parliament there were only 59 Members in the Opposition. I suggest to the Attorney-General that such a tornado does not happen very often, and is extremely unlikely to happen again. The argument in favour of the Amendment is that the two-party system under which we are at present living is unlikely to continue. It is possible that parties on both sides of the House may be very much more split up than they are now. We have not proportional representation, although one is always being urged to bring it about. Suppose that we were to bring in such a system, we should obviously have, as there is upon the Continent, what the French an Emiettement de Partis, a whole lot of small parties jostling for positions. You would run the risk of having parties consisting of fewer than 60 Members each.
Suppose you had in Opposition under that system five different parties, each consisting of 40 or 50 Members; probably one party would be taken as the official Opposition, although they might exceed in numbers only by two or three Members the next biggest party. It would be very difficult to claim that the Leader of an Opposition of that kind would be in the peculiar and unique position which we have been told is the reason—a perfectly proper reason—for giving the Leader of the Opposition £2,000 a year. No harm can be done by accepting the Amendment, as we should be making provision for the breakdown of what we describe as the two-party system. There is no danger in accepting the Amendment, and it might do some good.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will reject the Amendment, in spite of the arguments which have been used in its support. There is an old saying and a true one about never crossing your bridges until you come to them. It seems.that all that the promoters of the Amendment have done is to indulge in speculation. One could go on all night speculating and making all manner of combinations of things that might arise in the future in this House. The only point which I see arising out of the Amendment

is that which has been dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and it seemed, to use a vulgarism, to stand out a mile. It is that if the official Opposition at any time were to be reduced to something in the region of 60 Members, the duties of the official leader would be heavier, instead of lighter, than they would be if their numbers approximated to the strength upon the Government side.
Tributes have been paid, not only by members of the Government but by people in every rank of life, to the enormous amount of work which fell upon the Leader of the Opposition in the last Parliament. The only case we can deal with is the one which we know. To indulge in a series of speculations as to what may happen in the future, and whether the Government will consist of a number of small groups loosely welded together and the Opposition consist of a number of groups, and whether by-elections will alter the relationship of parties, leads us nowhere. I hope that the Government will stick to the Bill as it is.

Amendment negatived.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, to leave out from "Commons," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
the question shall be referred by the Speaker of the House of Commons to the Committee of Privileges, who shall decide upon the question which is the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, and, the Committee of Privileges having so decided, the Members of that party in the House of Commons and no others shall decide by election who shall be the Leader of the Opposition, and the salary shall be paid to that person accordingly.
This Amendment seeks not to proceed with the proposal to place upon the shoulders of Mr. Speaker the task of deciding who is the Leader of the Opposition. In asking hon. Members to place that task in part upon the Committee of Privileges and in part upon Members of the largest party in the House, I am conscious that I am proposing an innovation which comes within the delicate sphere of the Committee of Privileges. We know of Privilege in regard to the rights of private Members and the rights of this House as a whole, but never, so far as I know, have the rights of parties been made the subject of claims on the ground


of Privilege. Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind the fact that the Parliamentary alignment known as the party system does not extend very far back into our Parliamentary history. I venture to think that, if the party system had extended back into those years when the foundations of our laws and customs of Parliamentary Privilege were being laid, these decisions as to the rights of parties would have been laid upon the Committee of Privileges rather than upon the shoulders of Mr. Speaker.
The Clause as it stands proposes to impose a double duty upon Mr. Speaker. It lays upon him first the duty of deciding which is the largest party in Opposition in the House; and, having satisfied himself upon that point, we are proposing then to give him the duty of deciding who is the Leader in the House of that party. The impartiality of the Speaker is not for a moment in question in my Amendment, but I wish to emphasise that the Speaker will only be called upon to act in circumstances of doubt. Where there is no doubt and no contention, no duty will be laid upon the Speaker at all. Therefore, his decision, when it is given, must be antagonistic to the feelings of a large number of Members of the House.
I would like the House to keep in mind a certain situation which may arise under the Sub-section as it stands. A new Parliament may be returned, when we shall find ourselves without the advantage of a Speaker in the Chair and without the advantage of a Leader of the Opposition. Is it not possible in those circumstances that parties will be induced to take into consideration the decision which the Speaker might make as to who is to be the Leader of the Opposition, in deciding to whom they should give their support for the office of Speaker? I am very sorry to see that the Minister of Health does not take this matter with the seriousness that it warrants. It is really incumbent upon the House, when it is legislating, to legislate with foresight and with consideration of the various circumstances which may arise in the future. We are not legislating in this Clause for an ordinary situation; we are legislating for circumstances of doubt which may well arise; and, although it may appear that the precautions which I am now seeking to take are not necessary to-day, it is

very likely and probable that in the course of the next century or so they may be. I was reading only the other day the debate on the Royal Marriages Bill in the House of Lords; I believe it was in 1770; and then a body of Peers was so concerned because provision was not being made for the marriage of the King himself that 25 of them insisted upon its going on record that within the next one or two centuries the House of Lords would have cause to regret that it had not dealt with that possible contingency. Therefore, I think we ought to try to frame this legislation, which may play a very vital part in the relationships between parties in years to come, with proper foresight and consideration.
I repeat that, if neither the Speaker nor the Leader of the Opposition is elected at any given time, it may well be that one party or the other, being a candidate for choice as the larger party in Opposition, may be influenced in their consideration of whom they shall support as the Speaker by anticipations of what view he may take as to which shall be the largest party and who shall be the Leader of that party in the House. We shall, therefore, find that the party which is disappointed will feel aggrieved. I think the whole House will agree that it is not only necessary that the Speaker should be impartial, as he always is in his principal task of presiding over our deliberations, but that it should be recognised by the House as a whole that he is impartial; and I say that it will be antagonistic to that feeling in the House if there are ever to be found 80, 90, or 120 Members, it may be, who feel that they have been deprived of the position of the official Opposition.
My Amendment divides the task of ascertaining who is the Leader of the Opposition into two parts. The first part requires a decision to he arrived at as to which is the largest party in Opposition, and I am seeking to lay that task upon the shoulders of the Committee of Privileges. The second part of the task will be to set up the actual Leader of that party, and in my submission the only people competent to decide who shall be the Leader of that party in the House of Commons are the members of that party in the House of Commons. A situation may well arise, under the present system of electing leaders which obtains in a party which I will not name,


in which there may be some embarrassment, because it is not only Members of the House of Commons who elect the Leader of that party, but candidates and representatives of constituency organisations and Members of the other House. Therefore, if we are going to leave that task in the hands of the Speaker, he will be required to take cognisance, not only of the wishes of Members in one party in the House, but of a whole set of other people over whom he has no jurisdiction and of whose actions he cannot, so far as I can understand, be cognisant. Therefore, I submit that there is some reason at any rate to give serious consideration to the proposal I am making. In recommending it to the Government, I do not seek to press it unduly; I only ask that they should give it the consideration which it ought to receive; and if, on reflection, they find that there are some considerations which have not previously occurred to them, I hope they will take what action in another place they think the circumstances warrant.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because I sincerely share my hon. Friend's great uneasiness with regard to the wording of this Clause. I would point out that the Clause only deals with the question of doubts arising as to who should be regarded as the Leader of the Opposition, and that doubts on such a question can only arise from very serious causes indeed. Generally speaking there can be no difficulty, and there has been no difficulty, in deciding who is the Leader of the biggest party in Opposition in the House. Therefore, if the Clause provides for a state of doubt, I think it is unfair and is not the duty of the House to place the onus on the shoulders of the Speaker under what must be very difficult conditions indeed. The Attorney-General, who has been very genial and generous during the discussion of this Bill—almost as genial as the Ali Baba of olden days when he received from the other 40 his share of the spoils —stated quite generously that the official Opposition, and only the official Opposition, would appoint their own Leader. But the Attorney-General did not, and perhaps he will, enlarge upon what are the causes of doubts arising in the House on the question of such leadership.

Doubts can arise possibly because there may be two or three parties in opposition to the Government with approximately even, or nearly even, memberships, each making a definite claim to the right to be termed the party in Opposition. There may even be a split in the big party with regard to the leadership of that party. Fortunately, looking to the future, I can well believe that, at least in the party to which I belong, those splits will not occur; we have been very successful in transferring that type of material on to the opposite benches during the past two or three years. But there may be, as some Members have already visualised, parties in the future that may be split very decidedly within their own ranks on the question of who should be the leader of the party.
I think that the phrasing of the Clause shows uneasiness, and that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, must now, after listening to my hon. Friend and myself, be very uneasy in your own mind as to the outcome of this piece of legislation. Therefore, I would merely ask that, should the Amendment not meet with the approval of the Government, or should it in one way or another technically or legally be not practicable as we desire it to be, the Attorney-General should reconsider the whole question and try to come to some arrangement that will not leave us, as regards the leadership of the Opposition, dependent upon the Speaker, and will not place the onus on the shoulders of one man. In view of the traditions of this House, and of the legislation that has been passed by this House, I think that such a problem should not be insurmountable, either for the Government or for the chief parties in the House.

7.59 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I would like to assure the Mover of this Amendment that the Government have, of course, given consideration to his proposal. If hon. Members will look at the Clause and consider the circumstances in which it is likely to come into operation, I think it will be agreed that the possibility in practice of any difficulty of this kind arising is likely to be very remote. The reason why such a Clause has to be inserted, and provision made for such a contingency, is that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition will come on the Consolidated Fund, and, of course, some provision has to be made


in the event of a difficulty arising. But I hardly think, myself, that any difficulty of this kind is likely to arise, or that Whoever has to decide the matter is going to be very much overburdened by it, because it is only if any doubt exists as to which is or was at any material time the party in Opposition having the greatest numerical strength—I should not think that a difficult matter to decide—or who is or was at any material time the Leader in the House of such a party.
The Sub-section is simply put in to provide for a contingency having regard to the matter I have mentioned so far as the Consolidated Fund is concerned. When you have to settle a matter of this kind, Mr. Speaker would be an eminently proper person. When you consider the alternative that the hon. Member has put forward, I certainly do not think he has chosen a very convenient body. Having regard to the composition of the Committee of Privileges, it would lead to an almost ludicrous result. It might very well be said, in fact, that both these matters would be decided by the majority party, which would certainly be open to considerable objection, and if the decision was not very gratifying or acceptable, all sorts of charges and suggestions would be made. Mr. Speaker, who has consented to carry out the duty if it is put upon him, is really the person to decide this. He is associated with these matters in the day to day working of the House, and he would be more satisfactory to the House as a whole. I admire the hon. Member's persistence—he has been opposed to this proposal from the beginning, and this is his last shot—but I hope in the circumstances, and in view of the explanation that I have given, he will not press the matter further.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has used the term "party." At this moment we know what the term means. Speaking of the House of Commons as it exists at present, we know which is the party with the largest membership, but imagine an Election in which there is returned a party which has a majority, and therefore becomes the Government, and perhaps half a dozen other parties of almost equal strength. Assume that two of those parties join together in order to become a majority of the parties in opposition. Does the term "party"

convey the meaning of a combination of parties of that kind, or are we using the term "party" in a singular sense? That is the kind of contingency that my hon. Friend has in mind. I am definitely opposed to proportional representation. I believe that it is one of the contributory factors to the destruction of democracy on the Continent, in that no party has ever been able to form a Government without air kinds of bargaining, which causes a suspicion of political corruption. After all we may have a change in that direction in this country. If some future Government adopts proportional representation, we shall have a large number of new parties of the kind with which we are familiar on the Continent and the Speaker of the House may be given the unenviable task of deciding which of half a dozen parties is the largest. In view of that, I think there is a good deal to be said for making provision of this kind to settle the question, if it should arise, in the best way possible.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think any one has any doubt as to who is the best authority to settle the matter contemplated in this Clause. Obviously it must he Mr. Speaker. The Committee of Privileges is not an ideal authority for deciding a question of this nature. Mr. Speaker has to decide very controversial questions on occasion and it is hardly ever that his decisions are challenged by any one, which is an illustration of the impartial and correct way in which he works. He not only acts on his own initiative but he is admirably advised on many of the constitutional and legal questions that arise. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend base his argument for legislating for centuries ahead on what happened in another place two centuries ago. I should have thought that that would be the last authority to which he would go for progressive views to legislate for the years to Come. There was a dispute on one occasion as to which party should occupy this Front Bench when the Liberal party, which I do not see at the moment, was almost the same size as the party to which I belong. Mr. Speaker settled the question as to who was to be the official Opposition and, if he is ever called upon to settle such a question again the whole House would accept his decision.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. V. Adams: While I admire the farseeing Statesmanship of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), who wishes to legislate for a hypothesis which may arise 100 years hence, I am at a loss to understand the full purport of his Amendment. I have been trying to imagine a situation that might arise at the beginning of a new Parliament, and the set of circumstances that the hon. Member seems to have in mind. As far as I am aware, at the beginning of a new Parliament there is no Committee of Privileges in existence at all, and the first thing that a new Parliament has to do is to elect a Speaker. Then, longo intervallo, comes the election of the Committee of Privileges, with which the Government side has a substantial amount to do. They have also a good deal to do with the election of the Speaker; and they will also be able to some extent, not exactly to dictate, but to guide and direct the personnel of the Committee of Privileges. All this time the House of Commons is going to be left without a Leader of the Opposition. That is not in my judgment the way in which to conduct our democratic proceedings in the most efficient way.

Mr. Garro Jones: The difficulty that the hon. Member envisages in the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition will be the same whether it is left in the hands of the Speaker or of the Committee of Privileges, because the Leader of the Opposition is no more necessary to secure the election of the Speaker than to secure the election of the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Adams: The point that I am making is that the House of Commons is going to be deprived for a long period of a Leader of the Opposition. We are all agreed that the Leader of the Opposition has extremely difficult and onerous duties to perform. I do not think the House could begin to function at the inception of a new Parliament without a recognised leader of His Majesty's Opposition. I cannot understand why the task of deciding which is the most numerous party in Opposition should present any difficulty to any one. Surely it can be left with perfect safety in the hands of the Speaker. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment seemed to fearsome-thing which is quite inconceivable, that

a Speaker might be elected to the Chair who saw double or suffered from a blind spot.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: The hon. Member has spoken of the delay that there would be if a committee had to consider the matter, but need a committee take longer to decide it than Mr. Speaker himself?

Mr. Adams: Have you ever served on a Committee?

Mr. Kelly: Yes, I have served on committees but, if a matter of this kind is going to be so difficult that the committee would have to meet as frequently as some committees in this House meet, Mr. Speaker is going to have the same difficulty in having all these matters placed before him and requiring time to consider them. You are placing on the Speaker a burden that ought not to be placed on him. The hon. Member referred to the beginning of a new Parliament, but that is not the only occasion on which this difficulty might arise. I can imagine a Parliament starting out with such a number in a particular party that there would be no doubt as to it being the largest in numerical strength, but something might happen during the early days that might cause a difference in its numbers. That would mean a change, and, I suppose, a dropping of the salary too. It is wrong to throw this responsibilty on to Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Amendment will be carried, even if an alteration has to be made later, and that some other committee is thought better for the purpose than the Committee of Privileges. It is far better that somebody other than Mr. Speaker should be called upon to deal with the matter, and that he should not have the responsibility. I do not like the Bill at all, and I have tried to refrain from joining in the discussions. I hope that it will be made a better Measure than it is at present.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: It is painful to have to differ from one sitting so near to me as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), but his speech took my mind back to the time, some years ago, when I sat on the other side of the House and had the honour conferred upon me of being appointed a member of a committee which was to rationalise the proceedings of the House of Commons. It was a


speedy task, and the Labour Government were determined in their belief that the sooner the procedure of Parliament was rationalised, the sooner they would be able to get through the work expeditiously. But it took us four months to appoint a chairman. That was due to the very simple fact that there were an equal number of members of the Conservative party and the Labour party, and, I think, two members of the Liberal party. When the two members of the Liberal party were not present the voting was equal, and on the occasions when they were present one voted one way and the other voted the other way—quite a frequent occurrence for them. The Committee met and dissolved because they were unable to appoint their chairman, until it ultimately dawned upon the Conservative and Labour members of the Committee that the game which the two Liberal colleagues were playing was to try to secure the chairmanship for themselves. I can conceive something similar happening if this question has ever to be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that no method that anybody might devise would be entirely satisfactory. If it were not for Mr. Speaker or the Committee of Privileges, the only alternative that I would recommend—I am not going to hand in a manuscript Amendment—would be that we should revert to the ancient and honourable practice of casting lots. That would seem to be as satisfactory as any method, but in the circumstances I think that to allow Mr. Speaker to decide seems to be a satisfactory and expeditious way in which to settle it. If we were to have a Division on this matter I should feel compelled to vote in favour of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Garro Jones: Before I decide whether to press the Amendment or not, I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will answer one question. Has Mr. Speaker himself been consulted whether this somewhat invidious task would be acceptable to him?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, he has, and he has consented, if the House approves.

Mr. Garro Jones: In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.21 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I would like briefly to commend the Bill to the House. It is an interesting and important Bill from the constitutional and historical point of view. It can be said that for the first time in any Statute we shall have the Cabinet recognised and Cabinet Ministers defined, and for the first time in any Act of Parliament, as, I hope, it will be shortly, we shall have the recognition of the Leader of the Opposition. It will be only the second time in any Act of Parliament in which there is recognition of the Prime Minister. It can be said that well known conventions, which are certainly well established in this House and throughout the country, are now being turned into written law. I hope and believe that the increase which we are making in the salary of the Prime Minister will generally be approved by the country. No man carries heavier burdens and greater responsibilities, and it is interesting to observe that the office of Prime Minister is also definitely linked up, in an association of practically too years with that of the office of the First Lord of the Treasury.
I also commend the Bill to the House because it removes anomalies in the status and remuneration of Ministers, which, as every Member of the House who reads history knows, have long been a matter of difficulty for Prime Ministers. The Bill establishes a principle, which I do not think is likely to be changed, at any rate, for a long time by any Parliament, that members of the Cabinet shall receive the same remuneration. I believe that this is in the interests of good government, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said on the introduction of the Bill, it is right that members of the Cabinet responsible for primary policy should receive the same salaries. I assert that the country will generally approve, and will believe that it is right and fitting to the position and dignity of ex-Prime Ministers, that provision should be made for pensions. A man has invariably served the State for many years. He has reached the highest position in the land, and I hope the House to-night will approve of this provision which is being made for our eminent public servants.
I will say a few words on the position of the Leader of the Opposition and of the provision in the Bill which provides for his remuneration. This particular provision has been carried by a very large majority of representatives of all parties. The Leadership of the Opposition is a full-time job and certainly involves considerable expense in many ways. Having regard to the part I have taken in Opposition, perhaps I share the regret that is felt in some quarters that we shall not be able to move a reduction of the salary of the Leader of the Opposition. Although this provision is being made for him, I believe that he will be no less independent, but in fact more so. I do not think that it will in any way impair his freedom as Leader of the Opposition. I hope and believe that it will make for still greater efficiency in our Parliamentary system.
Finally, this can be said as far as the main provisions of the Bill ate concerned, that many of our difficulties and complexities in regard to the arrangements in which Ministers are distributed between the two Houses have been swept away, and for that reason the Bill will make for better Parliamentary Government. Proposals of this kind have been long canvassed, and many Governments have regarded them as desirable. It is true that the proposals in the Bill may provoke criticism on the part of a certain number of small-minded people, who may criticise the increases of salaries to Ministers and the provision of a salary for the Leader of the Opposition, but I am glad to think that we have a Government strong enough to bring in a Bill of this kind. I am sure that as a Government we can stand criticism of that kind. I hope, too, that the Labour Opposition will equally be able to stand any criticism that may be made in regard to the provision of a salary for the Leader of the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House as one which will still further maintain and improve our great democratic system and also, which is equally important, improve the efficiency and working of our great Parliamentary machine.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: Although this is an important Measure I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not address the House very long upon it. It has been very fully discussed on all sides, and the Amendments have not been numerous. I think

I can claim personal credit for the only Amendment that is there. I will not enter into an argument on the controversial observation of the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill shows the strength of the Government. If their supporters for once are found supporting them as a whole, then it is a sign of great strength, and if their supporters attack them so that they have to abandon the main principle of the Budget, that, too, is great strength. What it is to have a Press! While we have always opposed, and do oppose, the Bill, we have always recognised that there is a great deal in it which it is right and proper to enact. To get rid of anomalies and inequalities and to simplify some of our old machinery is a very good thing, but why we still retain the amazing anomaly of our Law Officers' salaries is a matter that I can only attribute to the strength of a trade union.
Our principle attitude to the Measure is that this is not the time to increase the total sum of money paid to a body of Ministers. Many of us would like to see it severely reduced, while others would not. I should like to see it severely reduced. I should not like simplification to stop in very high quarters, even if we could ever persuade it to begin. If without increasing the total amount there could have been an assortment of the money in order to level up these inequalities we should have found ourselves supporting the Bill. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), who does not like to think that he represents Maidenhead, as well, twitted us with having first accepted the pool and then added £2,000 to the pool for ourselves. We never accepted the pool. We never had a pool to accept. We have fought the Bill throughout because it always involved a substantial increase of the total amount. We said that the Government ought to take the total sums spent, re-allocate them and not exceed them, and that if we wanted to give £2,000 to somebody, then there ought to have been a reassortment of the sum total in order to enable that to be done.
Let me say a few words in reply to certain statements of the Minister of Health. He welcomes the salary of £10,000 a year for the Prime Minister


because he holds a great, important and onerous office. I object—some people do not—very strongly to the proposition that because a man has a higher and more onerous position he should have more money. You might as well say that he should compulsorily have less hair. It is this sort of thing that is ruining the country, and it will be disastrous until we put it straight, I mean the idea that position and power must be accompanied by money. It is bad enough that money must be accompanied by position and power.

Sir K. Wood: Does not that principle appertain to the Bar?

Mr. Pritt: The Bar is a very bad place in a great many ways, but it does not, with two distinguished exceptions, draw its money from public funds. We do not say that because Sir X. Y. is a very distinguished lawyer we should take another £5,000 of public money and put it into his pocket. I am reminded that when you get to a position of real dignity at the courts, that if you have had large earnings before, they are at once divided twice, thrice or four times, in order to bring the remuneration down to a proper level. I think that if the Prime Minister succeeded in living on £500 a year he would be a much greater and finer Prime Minister than living on £10,000 a year.

Captain Strickland: Would the hon. and learned Member apply that principle to the trade organiser and say that he should only receive the same amount of wages as the men he represents?

Mr. Pritt: I am not arguing or discussing the question of complete equality. I have not suggested that the Prime Minister should have the same amount of money as the people he represents. We have had it stated by a very eminent scientist that one-half the people that any Member of this House represents do not get enough to eat. I do not want anybody to be in that position, even the Prime Minister or even the Conservative Government. On the other hand, in regard to the provision that there should be a pension for the Prime Minister, I say that as long as pensions are not scattered about with too lavish a hand, as they have been in some European countries, there is everything to be said for a pension. I do not want to see

people drawing such vast salaries, but I want to see people able to go into public life with the assurance that if they attain high office they need not, when they are old, be in a position of financial hardship.
On the question of the salary of the Leader of the Opposition, unlike many other hon. Members I have never felt much misgiving. No doubt it is an anomalous position, but there are good anomalies and bad anomalies, and as far as this is an anomaly I think it is a good one. It is an important office, and it is utterly impossible for any party to be properly led except by a person who gives the whole of his time to the position. Therefore, that in itself will certainly give me no opportunity for voting against the Bill as a whole on the Third Reading.

8.37 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I do not wish to detain the House for a long time either. I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Pritt), at one moment with lively anticipation of possible benefits to come in the future. He said how wrong it was, what a bad principle it was, to pay people more because they happen to carry great responsibilities. I hope that at some future date, if I should happen to find myself in trouble and needing a little help, I shall be able to get it from the hon. and learned Gentleman at a low figure. Subsequently he explained that this applied not to private individuals but only to people who drew money from the State. I hope that this also will be noticed by the Treasury Bench, who will know if they require a good Treasury counsel where they can get him for a very small fee.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member that there are some good things in the Bill. We want to get rid of anomalies and inequalities, and if the Bill had been based on the principle of equalising salaries without increasing the total charge, I should have given it my strong support. I would have gone further, as I have already explained in previous speeches. I should have been prepared to go a long way towards carrying out the full recommendations of the two Select Committees of this House which sat in 1920 and 1930. My objection to this Bill is that it goes very much beyond the recommendations of those committees. Instead of giving the Prime


Minister £7,000 a year, as proposed by the Select Committee of 1930, it gives him £10,000; £2,000 if he becomes the Leader of the Opposition, and £2,000 a year when he retires from public life. That is one example. It gives a salary to the Leader of the Opposition which was never recommended by any Committee of this House, and to which I object.
The Bill goes very far beyond the recommendations of the Select Committee at a time when there is a call for the most rigid economy in public administration. On that ground the Bill must be opposed. I shall vote against it with my withers unwrung by the taunts of the Minister of Health about small-minded people who feel it their duty to oppose the Measure. On the other hand, I shall be interested to see whether the courage which he says is to be displayed by his own supporters and the Opposition, and the claim he indicated he had for the support of the Opposition, will be met. At any rate, he said this shows what a strong Government we have. We may be a little intimidated by Signor Mussolini, we may wobble a little in our foreign policy, we may not be able to give the firm support we promised to the League of Nations, we may introduce a tax which is the particular feature of our Budget one week and withdraw it three weeks later, but, at any rate, we are such a strong Government that we have managed to support this Measure for the equalisation of Ministers' salaries. I congratulate the Government on the courage, the persistency and the tenacity they have shown in forcing the Bill through the House. For my part I shall maintain my opposition.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I congratulate the right hon. Member on his amiable and pontifical speech. It must be a great consolation to the Members of the Liberal party who sit huddled together on those benches for protection and warmth, to be able to vote, it may not be with very much conviction, against something. It has been our comfortable experience in the past that they have been sitting on the fence for so long a time that it must have become a most painful experience.

Sir A. Sinclair: Will the hon. Member mention one?

Mr. Petherick: I remember one occasion in the last Parliament—[Interruption]— I may be old-fashioned but I have a long memory—when we had three Divisions at the end of the Debate. In one Division hon. Members voted against the Government, in the next for the Government, and in the next they abstained altogether. I have no instance during the present Parliament, but I have no doubt hon. Members will provide many before we have finished. I have supported the Bill all through in spite of the fact that I do not think i1 is perfect, and that some Amendments should have been accepted. The main recommendation of the Bill is that it makes it easier for a Prime Minister in the future in selecting his Cabinet to disregard differences in salaries; in other words, to equalise the salaries so that there maybe no difficulties, or heartburnings, or doubt as to whether he should promote certain Ministers to certain posts because questions of salary were involved. The only question that has arisen is whether we should equalise these salaries up or down.
Before the War the salaries of Cabinet Ministers were fixed at £5,000 a year. Income Tax at that time was 1s. in the £, and £5,000 represented about £4,750. At the present time if you deduct Income Tax and Surtax, and also take into account the difference in the cost of living, this £5,000 which a Cabinet Minister is supposed to receive is £2,370. One could make out a strong case that a salary with a purchasing power of £2,370 is not enough to enable a Cabinet Minister to keep up his great position with dignity. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) rather objected to that view. He said that he would like to see the Prime Minister get 500 and live on that; he did not see why some people should get more than others. The reason why they get more than others is precisely the same reason why a 17-hand horse needs more oats than a small Shetland pony. People who occupy great positions should be enabled to keep up those positions by receiving more money.

Mr. Mathers: Does the hon. Member suggest that a Prime Minister needs more food than an ordinary Member of Parliament?

Mr. Petherick: That depends upon the size of the Prime Minister. The hon.


Member took me a little too seriously. I had always given him credit for a little more sense of humour than that. I merely gave it as an analogy.
There is a minor point about which I would like to say a few words, and it has reference to Clause 3. On the Committee stage on the Bill it was pointed out that the machinery of this Clause is not perfect. Without referring to what we would have proposed if we had been allowed to do so, I think I am entitled to say that, as the Bill stands, the machinery of Clause 3 is not as complete as it should be. I hope it will not be thought that I am taking an over-legalistic view, for my only desire is that when the Bill goes to another place, it should be correct and complete. On the Committee stage, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) raised the point as to who is actually responsible for inviting a Minister to join the Cabinet. Clause 3 does not say who that person shall be. Under Clause 3, when a Minister mentioned in Part 11 of the First Schedule—for instance, the Lord Privy Seal, who receives £3,000 a year—is invited by the Prime Minister to join the Cabinet, he automatically receives £5,000 a year out of public funds, and the only evidence of that is that it is announced in the "London Gazette." The Clause, however, does not say who is to put that notice into the "London Gazette." When the point was raised, the Attorney-General gave a reply which was not very satisfactory, because he merely said that the "London Gazette" is taken as evidence in cases of promotions in the Army and the Air Force, and that bankruptcy notices are put in it. There have been many cases in Bills which have been passed by this Parliament and by the last Parliament, in which a duty was placed upon Ministers or local authorities to publish a notice in the "London Gazette," but in every case it was made a statutory duty upon the Ministers or local authorities.
In this case, we are by implication empowering the Prime Minister to spend a further £2,000 out of public funds. Nobody would deny the right of the Prime Minister—a right which exists already—to invite certain Ministers to join his Cabinet. As I understand it, the constitutional procedure at present is that

His Majesty invites a certain person to become Prime Minister and that that person submits a list of persons whom His Majesty appoints as Ministers, a certain number of them being Members of the Cabinet. I do not know whether it is necessary by custom—certainly it is not necessary statutorily—to get His Majesty's approval of the Cabinet per se. His Majesty appoints the Ministers, but by constitutional practice since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Cabinet is a sort of cabal or club, or whatever one likes to call it, of Ministers.
In this Bill we are making a very interesting constitutional departure. For the first time, we are acknowledging the existence of a Cabinet, which most people knew existed before, and for the second time we are acknowledging the existence of a Prime Minister. As we are giving the Prime Minister power to spend an extra £2,000 out of public funds in certain cases, it seems to me that machinery should be provided in the Bill by which the public should be told, and by which it should be made legal for him to do it. If the Bill goes through as it is, the Prime Minister will continue to have the right, which he has at present, to invite whom he likes from His Majesty's Ministers to join the Cabinet, but he will also have the additional right of spending £2,000, either in one case or in several cases, out of public funds, and there will be no machinery which confers that power upon him. I hope the Government will consider this matter. My only object, and I am sure the only object of hon. Members who have previously spoken on this matter, is to try to make the Bill as perfect as possible, and I hope that the rather halting sentences in which I have tried to put this difficult constitutional point will receive consideration. I hope the Bill will be given its Third Reading by a big majority, because I believe it will tend towards the very much smoother working of our ancient Constitution.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I welcome very much this opportunity of opposing the Bill. It may be due to my confusion of mind or my lack of knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, but I find it rather strange that there is now opposition To a Bill upon which during the preceding stages there was such unanimity and collaboration,


and that the chief critics of the Bill—such as the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick)—are now giving it their ardent blessing. I am reminded of the old surprise parties that we used to have in Glasgow. Invitations were sent out to various individuals and each person invited brought tea, sugar or some other luxury, but at the end of the surprise party we always found that those who had organised it benefited to a great extent by having the bulk of the goods and luxuries that remained with them after the guests had left. I also feel that it was very appropriate that the Minister of Health should have moved the Third Reading of the Bill, because I think it will be agreed that no other Minister should be more conversant with the needs of the human body as far as nourishment is concerned.
My only objection is that the Minister of Health started at the wrong end of the ladder. I never believed that the Ministers who occupy the Front Bench opposite were in dire distress, or were undignified, as was suggested by the last speaker, or that they could be described as destitute or impoverished. It was surprising to me that the Minister in introducing this Bill should have a call to the Opposition—a call that was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). The Minister stated that the Government were strong enough to meet any criticism of the Bill and he hoped that the Opposition were also able to meet any criticism with regard to the salary to be received by the Leader of the Opposition. I sincerely trust that my hon. Friends will not take this as the first sign of collaboration between the Government and the Opposition on this question, but that we shall retain our freedom as an Opposition to decide who will be our Leader, despite any attractive offers coming from the benches opposite. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) seemed much concerned about the dignity of Cabinet Ministers. I desire to congratulate him on the stand he has taken against the Bill. It, at least, indicates to me that despite continual shuffling in the Government, he has no hope of early promotion.

Mr. Petherick: The hon. Member can say anything he likes about me. The only point on which I wish to correct him is his statement that I am opposed

to the Bill. I am not opposed to the Bill. I have tried to improve it in certain aspects, but I have been entirely in favour of it all the way through and have said so.

Mr. Davidson: Perhaps I misunderstood the words of the hon. Member. If he has been a supporter of the Bill and has merely been trying to improve it, may I suggest that the methods which he has adopted and the words which he has used should be studied carefully by him for future guidance? As I say, he was concerned about the dignity of Ministers. I venture to make the suggestion to hon. and right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite that if they test the country in the near future, they will find that many of the Ministers who are to receive these increases have already lost their dignity as far as the citizens of the country are concerned. These increases of salary are being handed out to Ministers who have been sacked from one job and put into another in the Government, because of their incompetency and their failure to understand the opinion of the people. These increases are being given to individuals who have been dismissed from the Foreign Office and sent into the Home Office, who have walked out of this House, as the Press said, with bowed heads and tears in their eyes, and have strutted back again to receive further honours and increased salaries from a grateful Government for their past failures.
It seems incomprehensible to me as a young Member of the House, coming from an area where the people have retained their dignity in the midst of the most terrible poverty to be found in this country. I represent a constituency in the second city of the Empire, and last week I received replies from Ministers indicating that Poor Law relief and poverty are increasing there under the Ministerial rule of those who are to receive these increases of salary. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity of protesting before the House and the country against giving increases to Members and against giving them to Ministers who, in my opinion, have consistently failed to operate or regulate the affairs of the country in accordance with the mind of the people and have brought to those whom I represent nothing but increased poverty and misery.

9.0 p.m.

Earl Winterton: We have had a very interesting Debate, conducted in a very friendly and pleasant atmosphere. I suppose that cynics outside the House would say that as the Bill concerns possible accretions of finance, to those who sit on both sides of the House, it is not surprising that that should be so, but at any rate those have been characteristics of the Debate. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) stated the case fairly from his point of view when he said that he was prepared to support a Bill which got rid of inequalities and anomalies in Ministerial salaries but that he would like to see the general level of Ministerial salaries lowered or rather that he would like to see a pool for Ministerial salaries which should not be exceeded and within which these anomalies should be rectified. The hon. and learned Member was, as I say, entitled to put that point of view, but it has already been answered on more than one occasion in the course of these Debates and I do not propose to answer it again.
I think a point that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition had a very practical bearing on another argument of the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member said that he objected to money going with place and power, but when it was pointed out to him, in an interruption from this side, that apparently the hon. and learned Member's

Division No. 205.]
AYES.
[9.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, R. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. p. G.
Crooke, J. S.
Guy, J. C. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hannah, I. C.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cross, R. H.
Harbord, A.


Astor, Hon. W. w. (Fulham, E.)
Crossley, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Balfour, Cap). H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
De Chair, S. S.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Denville, Alfred
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Blaker, Sir R.
Donner, P. W.
Higgs, W. F.


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hunter, T.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Eastwood, J. F.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Eckersley, P. T.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Burghley, Lord
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E, L.
Ellis, Sir G.
Keeling, E. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Carver, Major W. H.
Emery, J. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cary, R. A.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kimball, L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Latham, Sir P.


Channon, H.
Errington, E.
Lees-Jones, J.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Clarke, Lt.-Col R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Everard, W. L.
Levy, T.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fildes, Sir H.
Lewis, O.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Findlay, Sir E.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lloyd, G. W.


Cox, H. B. T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

argument did not extend to money earned at the Bar, the hon. and learned Member said he was speaking of money earned from the State. I should have thought that that represented the exact opposite, of the general political viewpoint held by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite above the Gangway. However, he was, I think, effectively answered by the Leader of the Liberal Opposition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) returned to a point on which he spoke in the course of the Committee stage. It would not be in order for me to deal, at this stage, with my hon. Friend's Amendment. All I can say is that as I read the Clause in question it appears to provide absolute safeguards for the protection of the conditions which my hon. Friend wishes to have protected. There can. of course, be no undertaking on the pan of the Government that any alteration will be made in another place, but I think he can be assured that there is sufficient legal knowledge and acumen among those who will have to consider this Bill in another place, to deal with the point which he has in mind if it is necessary to do so. I think those are all the points that have been raised in the Debate and I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Aves, 156; Noes, 112.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rankin, Sir R.
Storey, S.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Maitland, A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. 0. R.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Sutcliffe, H.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Remer, J. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Turton, R. H.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wakefield, W. W.


Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Morgan, R. H.
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Munro, P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Watt, G. S. H.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Palmer, G. E. H.
Simmonds, O. E.
Wise, A. R.


Peake, O.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Petherick, M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.



Procter, Major H. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Amnion, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rowson, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Holdsworth, H.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Short, A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Knex, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cooks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Messer, F.
Walker, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Watkins, F. C.


Fool, D. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. McL,.


Frankel, D.
Muff, G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M
Paling, W.
White, H. Graham


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, J.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Potts, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Price, M. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pritt, D. N.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [EXPENSES OF DIRECTORS OF MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the director of any museum

or gallery, the expenses of which are defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, in connection with the exemption of sculptures and other works of art from customs duties.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I do not take exception to this matter, but I want to ask whether any provision is made so that when works of art come into this country they will


be cared for and not be left, like many of the pictures in the Tate Gallery, to deteriorate until they become a loss to the whole community.

9.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I understand that the hon. Member does not wish to question the wisdom of this Resolution, but that he asks a question in regard to the care of objects of art. So far as this Resolution is concerned, there is no provision for the after-care of objects of art after they reach their destination in this country. That must be left to the good taste and good sense of those who are responsible. I do not think I should be in order on this Resolution in discussing pictures in the Tate Gallery. There are trustees for that institution, who do their work very well indeed.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES.

Ordered, "That the Prime Minister be added to the Committee of Privileges."—[Sir A. Lambert Ward.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES.

9.17 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1937, dated the 24th day of March, 1937, made by the Minister of Transport under and by virtue of the powers conferred on him by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a copy of which Regulations was presented to this House on the 15th day of April, 1937, be annulled.
Before I address myself to the Motion, may I congratulate the Ministry of Transport on the Minister they have obtained and the Minister on his job? I would like to condole with him at finding this illegitimate baby on the doorstep. The father of the child, I understand, has joined the Army. It may be asked why these Regulations should be annulled and not amended. The reason is that the procedure laid down in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 111, does not allow of any

Amendment of the Regulations but provides for their withdrawal and their reintroduction later, amended as they should be. The Regulations started with the Motor Car Act of 1903, they were brought up to date in 1931, and in the subsequent years 1933–35 there were various additions. The present Regulations are chiefly consolidation, and if they are withdrawn for a short period before they are reintroduced there will he no alteration in the Regulations which exist at the present moment and no hardship will be caused on that account.
There are 97 Regulations; 93 of them are all right and nobody will have any grumble against them. Numbers 11, 70, 93 and 95, however, have objectionable matter within them. The main gravamen of our complaint is against Regulation 95. The vice in it is contained in the last three lines. The regulations says:
Any police constable in uniform, and any person for the time being appointed by the Minister of Transport as a Certifying Officer or Public Service Vehicle Examiner under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or as an Examiner under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, who shall produce his authority if required, is hereby empowered to test and inspect either on a road or, subject to the consent of the owner of the premises. on any premises where the vehicle is, any brakes, silencers or steering gear fitted to a motor vehicle or trailer.
All that is necessary is to get the consent of the owner of the premises; I can only presume that that was put in to avoid any trouble over the law of trespass in order to protect the rights of property. But is not a car property, and are not the rights of the owner worthy of protection? How can the brakes and steering gear be tested in the garage? Possibly the silencer can be tested, but is that a fair test, because the test of a silencer is whether it makes an unnecessary amount of noise when running on the road? At any rate, if the silencer of the car has to be tested the engine must be started up. A great many motor-car owners, including myself, invariably in the winter empty the radiator when we leave cars in the garages. Without my knowledge, and subject only to the consent of the owner of the garage, a police officer or inspector can come along and start the engine to see whether the silencer is satisfactory. What will happen to the engine if it is run for a very few minutes Without any water? It might well be that


the oil wants renewing and severe damage may ensue to the engine.
In this Regulation there is an implied power to remove the car in order to test it for brakes and steering. You cannot test the car for brakes very easily when it is stationary unless you have a braking machine. You certainly cannot test it for steering when it is stationary—at least to my knowledge, and I have driven for 28 years and know something about driving a car. Moreover, it cannot be inspected without a certain amount of dismantling. Who will take responsibility for the contents of the car if anybody is to be allowed to play about with it outside the garage? Suppose an inspector takes the car out to test it and there is an accident, who will pay for the damage, whether it be third-party or any other damage? Many owners of cars have policies of insurance which preclude anybody but the owner from driving, and under Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act it is laid down:
Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to use, or to cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the user of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
If there is an accident while this test is being carried out without the owner's knowledge, and the policy of the owner covers only him when driving, who will pay for the damage? A question was asked in the House the other day on the subject of control, and the reply was that the Home Secretary had notified chief constables that they were not to press this matter too far. I hope to deal with that point in a few minutes. In the Standing Committee on the Road Traffic Bill in 1930, the question was raised as to what was to happen in this matter, and the Minister of Transport, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), said that he proposed to put down an Amendment for the Report stage so as
to make the latter part of the paragraph read somewhat on the following lines: and for empowering persons authorised by or under the Regulations to test and inspect any such brakes, silencers or steering gear either on the road or after giving due notice to the owner of the vehicle at such reasonable times and places as may be specified in the notice'."

[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), l0th April, 1930; Col. 648.]
These were the words the then Minister of Transport used. He said that he would embody the words in the Bill. On the Report stage of the Bill the Minister moved an Amendment which was not in those specific words. Neither he nor anybody else noticed it and the wording "the owner of the premises," crept in.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to ask, Who is the owner of the premises? Is it the lessee or is it the actual owner? Suppose I were to own motor garage premises in Brighton and had leased them to an automobile engineer for three, seven or 10 years, is he the owner or am I the owner to whom the application should be made in order to inspect somebody else's car in which I have no interest? And what garage proprietor is going to withhold his consent to the inspection? I am not asking for the consent of the owner at all. I am asking that the owner of the vehicle should be notified. I think that he ought to consent. I am asking only that he should be notified so that he or his agent can be present when such inspection takes place.
As a safeguard against any difficulties it was mentioned in Committee on the Bill that the motor organisations would be consulted before these Regulations were issued. I believe that the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and the Motor Legislation Committee were consulted, and that they protested most vigorously against this Regulation, but that their protests were completely and absolutely ignored. These Regulations are mainly to ensure the safety of the public as far as possible. What is the connection between the examination of silencers and public safety? Public convenience and the abatement of noise, yes; but it has got nothing to do with safety and it has been inserted merely for the convenience of the Ministry of Transport. But my grouse chiefly is that the owner of the vehicle is not notified.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): Would the hon. and gallant Member allow me to ask him whether if the owner were notified a great deal of his complaint would fall?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: The main burden of my complaint would fall, but I want to make absolutely certain that that appears in the Regulations and not merely


as an instruction to chief constables. Time and time again I have heard the Home Secretary reply in this House that he has no real control over chief constables, and I could not look on it as a satisfactory reply that the Home Office had notified chief constables that they were to do this. There was a question asked in this House on 24th May and the Under-Secretary for the Home Department replied that the Home Secretary
is advising chief officers of police not to undertake such an examination, save in most exceptional circumstances, without notifying the owner of the vehicle as well as the owner of the premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 937; col. 20, Vol. 324.]
But it is to be observed that while the Minister said that he could deal with unreasonable conduct by examiners, he gave no specific promise that an examiner would give notice of his test. Over his own examiners the Minister has control, and I can accept an assurance in respect of them. Where the police are going to do any testing I cannot accept any assurance unless it is put in black and white in the Regulations.
Members of the House brought this matter up with the Minister when these Regulations first appeared, and he courteously went into the whole matter and wrote out a very reassuring letter. At least, it was intended to be reassuring, but I am afraid that I am not as assured as much as I ought to have been and many of my hon. Friends are hardly reassured at all. He said:
I think, however, that it is desirable that there should be power to inspect a vehicle involved in an accident where brakes are suspected of being a contributory cause, and to amend the Regulation in the sense suggested would be to allow a situation to arise where the object of the Regulation would be defeated, if the owner of the vehicle could refuse to have it inspected.
I quite agree, and I am not asking for the owner of the vehicle to be given a chance to refuse, but I want him to know that his vehicle is to be inspected.
The withdrawal of these Regulations is quite a simple matter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to follow the Prime Minister's magnificent example. There is no difficulty about it. In December, 1934, there were certain Unemployment Assistance Regulations which had the word "that" instead of "than" and they were withdrawn and re-issued without any difficulty at all. No Amendment

can be made to the Regulations until they are withdrawn. Nothing will happen to the existing Regulations; they will carry on. But the liberty of the individual is being threatened in this matter. I hope that the Minister, if he does consider the withdrawal and re-issue of these Regulations, will consult the motor organisations on the other Regulations which, I have said, contain objectionable matter, but No. 95 is the main one, and we feel that we cannot permit it to continue in its present form. Unless some satisfactory reply comes from the Minister, I must warn him frankly that I am prepared to divide the House.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I beg to second the Motion.
I would ask the House, to note that this is one of the too infrequent occasions when Members sitting on opposite sides of the House move and second the same proposition. It has been said frequently that we are in very grave danger in this country of being ruled by Regulations. A leading daily newspaper, in a leading article one day this week, pointed out that there were now 2,000 separate offences which motorists could commit, and these Regulations wit. add considerably to the number. My objection to Regulation 95 is, in the first place, that it is confused and difficult to understand. Like the hon. and gallant Member, I should like to hear from the Minister whether the reference to "owners" of garages includes occupiers of garages. The Minister nods his head, and I am glad to have that assurance, but why was that not specifically stated in the Regulation. One cannot expect every motorist to go to his legal adviser with this Regulation and ask him to give him an opinion on it, and I am sure that 99 per cent. of the population were not aware that the term "owner" meant "occupier" [HON. MEMBERS: It does not."] Well, I will leave it to hon. Gentlemen to explain. The Regulation says:
Subject to the consent of the owner of the premises.
What I want to know, in plain language, is whether a man paying it a week to rent a garage is the owner of it. This Regulation is likely to lead to litigation. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned one or two things that might arise. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether,


under this Regulation, it would be possible for a constable to remove a car from a garage. I have read it as carefully as I can, but I am still a little in doubt on that point. Perhaps he will also explain how it would be possible for the constable to test the brakes of the car inside the garage.
The hon. and gallant Member also referred to the difficulties of finding out who would be responsible if an accident occurred when the constable or person other than the owner was testing the car. I heard the other day of a rather peculiar accident. A gentleman with a new car, only about a month old, was a little slow in pulling up at a crossing after the lights had gone against him and went about two yards across the line. A police car was alongside, and a policeman put his head out of the window and said to this gentleman, "Pull up at the other side when we get over. I want to talk to you." They crossed when the lights changed, and the police car came up. The constable said, "Are your brakes all right, old man?" The other motorist said, "Yes, I think so." The policeman said, "Well, I don't think so, and I am going to test them." The motorist said, "How are you going to test them? Are you going to get in and drive?" The policeman said, "No; you go on up the hill, and when you are going about 30 miles an hour I will 'gong' you and you stop." The motorist drove on, and when he was going about 30 miles an hour the police car behind suddenly "gonged" him. He stopped, and the police car crashed into him. I do not propose to say anything more about that case, because I understand that proceedings in that matter are still pending. I am told that the gentleman was so disgusted at having his new car wrecked that he said he was not going to have any more to do with it, got into the first omnibus and left the police to do with his car as they liked.
I have mentioned that, because if accidents do take place there are likely to be complications if somebody else is driving the car. I think the House will agree, too, that a man driving his own car might be able to pull up in 20 yards, whereas a man who was driving somebody else's car for the first time might not be able to pull up in 50 yards. Reading this Regulation, one is tempted to ask, "Why

do the Ministry want this power?" I have come to the same conclusion as my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. I can only think that in the event of an accident in which defective brakes are suspected the police want to be able to go to the garage and not be hampered by the possible refusal of the car, owner to have his brakes tested. The hon. and gallant Member opposite said that he was prepared to accept something less than a provision that the "consent" of the owner must be obtained, and would be satisfied if the Regulation required that the owner should be notified. Personally, I take up the same position. I think that alteration would meet the position, if the words "with the knowledge of the car owner" were inserted in the Regulation.
Another point arising out of this Regulation is of concern to commercial travellers. Thousands of them use their cars to carry their samples, and they garage their cars at a different town almost every night. What is to happen if, under this Regulation, someone conies along and, without the knowledge of the owner of the car, having obtained the consent only of the owner of the garage, proceeds to test that car, and some of the samples are missing next day? Such things have been heard of. Who would be held responsible? Surely this would seriously affect the insurance of cars, particularly the car of a commercial traveller who was carrying valuable stock. If the right hon. Gentleman were to give us what is known as a "Parliamentary undertaking" in this matter, my own opinion is that that would not be adequate. We have to consider the circumstances existing throughout the country. There are thousands of unpaid magistrates, all busy people, dealing with hundreds and hundreds of motoring cases. In my own district we have built a palatial police court, said to be the finest in the country, out of the fines we have had from motorists. All those magistrates are not likely to know of every Parliamentary undertaking which has been given.
It is perfectly well known, also, that there are not only some magistrates, but some chief constables, to whom a motorist is like a red rag to a bull. I wonder whether, if we give much more encouragement to magistrates and to chief constables in their campaign against motorists, we shall not have experiences


similar to those occasionally met with on the tube railways. We find that it is special ticket inspection day and at every turn we have our tickets inspected. Would it not be possible for a chief constable on a slack day to turn half-a-dozen of his men on to a road, say "We are having a special inspection this day," and pull up every motorist to inspect his brakes, irrespective of the fact that probably not 1 per cent. of them would be found to have anything wrong about them? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with the points which have been raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, and I would only add this appeal: that just as the Prime Minister began his Premiership so auspiciously by bowing to the will of the majority in this House, so the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet what, I am sure, is the will of the majority of the Members of this House, and that we may have an auspicious opening to his career as Minister of Transport.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: If the points which have been dealt with by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion were the only points arising, I should not intervene in the Debate, but I think hon. Members will agree when I have spoken that another point of very great importance is involved which will make them hesitate long before approving the Regulations. The matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred has been ventilated in the Press. The new Regulation which he mentioned embodies a change in the law which has been a matter of general comment and discussion, but the change in the law to which I propose to call attention has received no publicity whatever, and is, I believe, unknown at this present moment to every Member of the House, except those whose attention I have called to it. Nevertheless, hon. Members will find that it is a matter which concerns a great many of their Constituents.
Under the law as it has stood for several years, it has been compulsory to have a silencer which is suitable and sufficient, but it has also been illegal to fit a cutout to enable the driver to cut the silencer out and to produce noise as though that silencer were not fitted. By an, alteration of the old Regulation 16 and the substitution of the new Regulation 19, that law

has been altered, and, if these new Regulations now go through, it will be legal for every owner of a motor-car or motorcycle throughout the country to fit a cutout to his vehicle to enable him to cut out the silencer and to make a tremendous noise upon the road. I do not wish to deal with any legal technicalities, but I would like to explain to the House quite shortly the change in the wording which has brought about the new position. The old Regulation 16 said—leaving out unnecessary words—
Every vehicle shall be so constructed that the exhaust gases from the engine cannot escape into the atmosphere without first passing through the silencer,
which is then described. The effect of that is that a cut-out is made illegal. The new Regulation says nothing about the vehicle being so constructed that exhaust gases cannot escape without first passing through the silencer. It simply says:
Every vehicle shall be fitted with a silencer.
It then describes the silencer.
The House will appreciate that the important difference is that, under the law as it hitherto stood, the mere fitting of a cut-out has been illegal. As the law will stand, it will be legal to fit a cutout. I have no doubt that the Minister, when he replies, will call attention to a new provision which is put into the Regulations governing the use of motor vehicles, namely, the new Regulation 69. In fairness to the Ministry of Transport I must point out that, under Regulation 69, the use of a cut-out is prohibited; in other words, the law will be that it is legal to fit a cut-out, but illegal to use it. I do not think hon. Members will have any difficulty in seeing what evils will flow from that state of the law. As long as it is illegal to fit a cut-out, anybody who fits one will be guilty of an offence under Section 3 and the penalty Clause of the Act of 1930, and anybody who sells a motor vehicle fitted with a cut-out or supplies it for use on the road, will be guilty of an offence under Section 8 of the Act of 1934.
The ability given to the police and to inspectors to inspect cars will make it possible effectively to prevent the fitting of a cut-out as long as the law remains as it has been hitherto. If, on the other hand, we are dependent for securing silence solely on the prohibition of the use of the cut-out, it is not difficult to


see what the effect will be. A man or a youth who likes making a tremendous noise—and there are some—who is driving perhaps through a quiet country lane or village at the dead of night, will use his cut-out. The chance of his being detected in the act, and of somebody seeing his number and prosecuting him will be remote, and the risk will be worth taking. If the fitting of a cut-out is permitted and the use only is prohibited, there will be widespread abuse and a widespread increase of noise endangering health.
This will be a retrograde step. When the Minister of Transport issued the first draft of these new Regulations, they did not make this change in the law. Perhaps the Minister will tell us who asked for this change in the law, and why the request was granted. The late Minister of Transport set up a Departmental Committee on Noise in the Operation of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles. I would ask whether the committee was consulted on the proposed change in the law. I believe I am right in saying that there are only three possible arguments which could be put forward in favour of the change. It may be said that the purchaser of a motor car, though he will not wish to disobey the law in this country, may wish to take his car to some country where he is allowed to make himself a nuisance on the road, and that this change should therefore be permitted. I do not think there is much force in that argument. The small advantage to such a man would be more than counterbalanced by the enormous public loss that would be sustained by the people in these islands. It may further be said that while a man must not use the cut-out on the roads of this country, he may wish to be rid of the silencer when he goes to Brooklands. A cut-out, however, is not needed for that, since he can remove the silencer altogether when he gets there.
I suggest that no reason for this change in the law would entitle it to the support of the House unless it can be shown that the law as it has stood so long has hampered our export trade. I do not believe that if the great and well-organised motor industry had felt that its export trade was hampered by the existing state of the law, it would have hesitated to inform some Member of this House of that fact. I do not believe it

would have been driven to secure an alteration of the law in this surreptitious way. When we consider the export trade, it is worth noting that our chief rivals in the export trade, the American motor industry, does not find it necessary to fit their most popular cars with cut-outs. I believe that in these circumstances the House will rightly require from the Minister some very great and strong reason for permitting this change in the law. The late Minister of Transport took great credit for having increased the silence of motor vehicles, and it would be a bad start for the present Minister if he permitted a change in the law which introduced this extraordinary set-back. If the Minister says that he has the assurance of the motor trade that they are not going to fit cut-outs, then I would ask what is the reason for this change? But the assurance of the motor trade, in the sense of the car manufacturers, is altogether insufficient, because every supplier of appliances, whatever the makers of the car may say, will be able to fit any vehicle with a cut-out. If the Minister, on the other hand, has no assurance of any kind, then, if these Regulations go through, we may expect that in a very short time many motor vehicles and most sports cars in this country will be fitted with cut-outs, with the result of an enormous increase in noise on the roads. For this reason I beg the House carefully to consider whether it is right to sanction this change in the law.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I shall not need any silencer, because I only want briefly to enlarge upon a point with regard to Regulation 95. I do not think it is enough that the owner of a car shall be notified, for the reason stated by the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Motion. I think it is too dangerous altogether for the Minister to describe the way in which the Regulation will be administered, because, when it leaves here, the Minister has no power over the police at all. He has no right, as a matter of fact, to give that assurance, because he has no jurisdiction over the police. I want it to be made quite clear that the owner shall be notified in such a way that he or his agent can be present. It is possible that a man may be away from home, on holiday or for some other reason, and the police may knock at his door and say, "We want to look at Mr. So-and-so's car." If the police are to be given these powers to


examine vehicles, the examination ought not to be carried out unless the owner or someone representing him is present.
Another point is that, if under this new Regulation the police decide that they want to examine a certain vehicle, in the garage where that vehicle is there may be also another vehicle the owner of which may not have used it for some time. It may not be a vehicle that is on the road at all; it may not be licensed; he may be keeping it in order to exchange it at some future time as a setoff against a new car. It may be that the brakes on that vehicle are not quite up to the standard, because he is not using it. Would that be an offence under these Regulations, if the vehicle was not being used at the time and if it was not licensed?
It seems to me abominable that any police authority, without the consent of the owner of a vehicle, can go into the garage without his permission and examine that vehicle. We all want to do everything we can to ensure road safety. I have no objection to a man being stopped on the road and a proper test being made of his brakes and so on. If it is going to help in the saving of life, I am all in favour of it. But this regulation is an infringement of the rights of private individuals. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make some very fine speeches on that subject. Let his first act in his new office be in accordance with what he has been saying for so long. I wish him well, as we all do, and I do not want him to start by giving such powers as this to the police.

10.1 p.m.

Brigadier-General Spears: I should like very strongly to support the last speaker. I think that these Regulations are chiefly objectionable because of their infringement of the rights of the public. I am not sure that there is not some slight misunderstanding. I am not sure, from the letter which was sent by the Minister to Members of the House, that he does not believe that we object to inspection. We do not object to inspection at all. The motoring community is only too anxious to help and contribute towards safety in every form. We are all for that. What we object to is the surreptitious inspection by the police without the permission of

the owner of the car. It can serve no useful purpose whatsoever. If a car is deemed to be faulty on the road, it can be inspected on the road. If a car is suspected by the police of being faulty in the garage, there is nothing to prevent the police from going to that garage and putting their seal on the car so as to prevent it from being moved until it has been inspected. No one objects to that. What we want is that the owner should be notified, because, after all, the owner may be suspected or accused of a very serious crime. Is it right that there should only be one-sided evidence of a one-sided inspection by the police? Should not the owner have the right to be there, or have experts of his own present, while the car is being inspected?
It seems to me that there is something altogether absurd about this Regulation which has escaped previous speakers, and that is that the owner of the garage may refuse the police permission to go into it. The owner of the car may instruct the garage owner to refuse the police access to his car. That is a perfectly ridiculous state of affairs. A man might altogether avoid the result of his negligence by taking this very simple measure under the Regulations.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Has the hon. and gallant Member visualised this possibility? A man, when driving a car, escapes the police, but someone gets the number. He arrives at a garage, which may be his own garage. He there adjusts his brakes, and avoids the possibility of being discovered with faulty brakes on the road.

Brigadier-General Spears: We certainly would wish to see a man like that detected, but there is nothing in the world to prevent a man from doing exactly as the hon. Member has described. We have no objection Whatever to the police, if they know where that car is, going to the garage and either having a constable by it or putting their seal on it so that it is not touched until it has been inspected by the proper authority. It seems to me that that is only fair.
Some of the other consequences have been touched upon by previous speakers. If an accident occurs during the testing of a car in the garage, who is going to be responsible? The insurance company does not cover the car in those circumstances because it is only covered if it is being


driven with the owner's knowledge and consent. Someone may be killed. It is not made clear whether the police have a right to take the car out of the garage or not. Presumably they would have to take it out, but it is not said so in the Regulations at all. In order to test some parts of a car it has to be dismantled. When a car has been dismantled without the knowledge of the owner, how is he to know that it has not been badly assembled? If it were my car, I should hesitate to go on the road again unless it had been assembled by someone in whom I had confidence. Suppose an accident were attributed to bad assembling after an inspection of that kind, who is to be responsible?
I should like to say a word on the question of the speedometer. By the Regulations every car is to have a speedometer. That, again, seems to me an infringement of the rights of the individual. It is up to the individual to keep within the law. If he does not have a speedometer, he cannot plead the lack of it for not keeping within the law. The only case in which a speedometer can with justice be made compulsory is the case of cars driven for hire, because it is not fair that a chauffeur driving someone else's car should be subject to punishment if the owner will not provide him with a speedometer. It is up to the individual to keep within the law, otherwise there is no end to all the gadgets that may be imposed. A speedometer at night is of no use unless it is illuminated, and to enforce the illumination of a speedometer is a very dangerous thing.

Mr. Davidson: Are motorists in future only to drive their cars at night time?

Brigadier-General Spears: Motorists, of course, drive, both by night and by day. That is a truth which most of us accepted some time ago. In certain conditions of light, fog and rain, it is extremely dangerous to have a light. One would be very much better without it. That shows how badly thought out these regulations are. Finally, there is the regulation concerning mascots. I do not know what a mascot is. It ought to be defined. Are club badges mascots? They have points, and they could be prohibited under the Regulations. The caps of radiators might be deemed to be mascots. It seems to me that it would be very much simpler to say that no dangerous

projection of any kind should be allowed. But the main Regulation to which we object is Regulation 95, and we hope the Minister will withdraw it.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I certainly have no complaint that hon. Members should have raised this matter, and still less of the way in which it has been raised. May I take the first opportunity that is given me as Minister of Transport to point out how very greatly I propose to value the co-operation of the motoring fraternity in the problem of increasing the safety of the roads? Encouragement in care rather than penalty for lack of care is an extremely good slogan. It is impossible to contend that the only occasion on which you should examine brakes is after some accident has happened and damage has been reported. It must be evident that there is a large number of cases in which precautionary examination of brakes. might induce a higher standard of care and lessen the total of accidents. Therefore I want to approach the problem as a practical one in which I want to invite the co-operation of all road users with a view to reducing the trouble that is at present caused upon the roads. By our Parliamentary practice it is necessary to table a Resolution to annul the entirety of a series of Regulations if one wishes to call attention to two or three, and the hon. and gallant Member who introduced this matter pointed out that of all the Regulations, some 97, there were 93, subsequently I think reduced to 92, to which no exception was taken.
The Debate has centred principally upon Regulation 95 and, to enable me to deal with it, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word about the other points that have been raised. Practical Regulations to be administered in a practical manner present features of difficulty when the task of putting them into words is embarked upon and, quite apart from any specific Regulations, I should like the House to understand that, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, I propose to keep a very close watch on the working in practice of these Regulations. That is a perfectly general statement, not limited to any one of these specific Regulations to which attention has been drawn. I do not believe that in practice the fitting of a speedometer showing the driver the time at which he is reaching a speed limit


which is his maximum is the cause of substantial grievance at all. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) is right in his assumption with regard to the cut-out. It is because of export requirements. I have been far too long at the Board of Trade to be desirous of putting a parochial regulation into force which handicaps our manufacturers in the markets of the world. It is an offence to use a cut-out, but in foreign countries where mountainous conditions prevail, and where they have not the excellent road surfaces that we have, and where distances are enormous and it is possible to travel scores of miles without meeting habitations quite different conditions apply. It would be ridiculous to impose upon manufacturers of high-powered cars a day-to-day restriction that they may not affix an appliance which is wanted abroad. We make it a criminal offence if it is used in this country. I do not believe there is any substantial grievance on that matter.
What is and what is not a mascot presents no difficulty to the ordinary man-in-the-street and ordinary motorists. The mascots to which the hon. Member referred are not mascots within my conception of this Regulation. What I mean by this Regulation, to state an example, is some bird with a long beak, amounting almost to a stiletto in character, which may well result, and in some instances has resulted, in the death of some person or other. There can be no substantial objection to these being prohibited. Any observation by any hon. Member with regard to any part of these Regulations will carefully be considered in the Department, and as I have said to the House, I propose to keep a very close watch upon the way in which these Regulations are interpreted and administered. We are dealing with a practical day-to-day problem and an immense variety of conditions and circumstances. There must be a large element of latitude. We must experiment, and I hope that my undertaking to keep in close touch with the working of the Regulations will be a sufficient assurance to the House. Let us look at the size of the problem with which we are dealing. The Home Office return of motoring offences for the year 1936, which is House of Commons Paper No. 120, of 1937, shows that there were some 15,000 alleged offences in connection with equipment and maintenance

of brakes and 12,000 convictions. This is a very large number.

Captain Strickland: Captain Strickland rose—

Mr. Burgin: I will give way to my hon. and gallant Friend before I sit down, but I would like just to develop my argument. I want, first of all, to state the fact that this is a big problem. I want to lay down the statement that the whole House is interested in seeing that efficiency of brakes is a subject to which motorists and inspectors of motorists pay due attention. I do not want to weary the House with the history of the matter, but it is very interesting to note that, long before the Act of 1930, inquiries had been made of all interested parties, including the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club and various users of the highway, as to whether a provision to make Regulations dealing with brakes and their sufficiency would not be a wise addition to the law. I have the papers here showing how this matter was raised in 1919, reported on in 1922, was then included in a draft prior to the passage of the Road Traffic Act through Parliament, and how the Act of 1930 ultimately emerged. The House is familiar with Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. In section 30 (1) (g) the Minister of Transport has power to make regulations dealing with:
the number and nature of brakes, and for securing that brakes, silencers and steering gear shall be efficient and kept in proper working order, and for empowering persons authorised by or under the regulations to test and inspect, either on a road or, subject to the consent of the owner of the premises, on any premises where the vehicle is, any such brakes, silencers or steering gear.
I want the House to realise that as long ago as 1930 the statute law of the land authorised the Minister of Transport to make Regulations dealing with the very subject matter that we are now discussing, and in the very words of the Regulation that is before us. The hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Colonel Sandeman Allen) said that on the Committee stage the then Minister of Transport gave an undertaking to move an Amendment on Report. He did give that undertaking, and the hon. Member has quoted it literally, as one would have expected, but between the Committee and the Report stages discussion took place, and when the Bill came to Report, the Minister of Transport, in compliance


with his undertaking, moved an Amendment in the terms in which we find it in the Act of 1930, and in the terms of the Regulation now under consideration. The inference is that the prior consent of the owner of the vehicle was found to be impracticable. The owner of the vehicle whose brakes are to be tested may himself be a victim of an accident and may be in hospital. All kinds of conditions are possible in which the procuring of the consent of the owner of the vehicle would stultify and nullify the whole provision. The worse the accident and the more obviously guilty the owner, the more probable would it be that the owner would say: "I will not give consent for the vehicle to be examined."

Colonel Sandeman Allen: We are not asking for that.

Mr. Burgin: I am dealing seriatim with the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. He referred to the specific undertaking given in the Committee stage as to an Amendment to be moved on the Report stage, but he put a different gloss on the reasons of the Minister of Transport for introducing the Amendment on the Report stage in a different form, and I am seeking to correct him by telling him that the reason the Amendment differed on Report from what was promised in Committee was that it was found that had the Amendment been introduced as it was suggested in Committee, it would have nullified and stultified the whole Regulations.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: My right hon. Friend has said that the consent of the owner might not be obtained, because he might be damaged in an accident. What the Minister said at the time was that he would move an Amendment "giving due notice to the owner." That is really all that we require.

Mr. Burgin: I am coming to it by stages. There is no difference between us, that now it is not asked that the consent of the owner should be obtained; but when the hon. and gallant Member and some of his friends waited upon my predecessor, the consent of the owner was asked for.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: No. I never asked for that.

Mr. Burgin: The notes are quite clear. There was a body of opinion that these

Regulations which it was sought to make should be conditional on the consent of the owner of the vehicle being obtained. I know that was the case: because a good deal of trouble was taken to investigate the position and it was because of the impossibility of agreeing to it that I am addressing my arguments to the House.

Captain Strickland: I really must point out that the delegation laid emphasis in their interview with the Minister of Transport on the fact of the car being examined without the owner's knowledge.

Mr. Burgin: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, but he will understand that there was a large body of opinion which asked for consent.

Captain Strickland: I must ask the Minister not to persist in making that statement. He distinctly told the House that the delegation which waited on the Minister asked for the owner's consent.

Mr. Burgin: The hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me. If there was any suggestion that I have said that I at once withdraw it. It was not my intention. I am saying that I am glad to know that hon. Members who have raised this matter to-night expressly repudiate the suggestion that they are asking for consent. I made that clear because there has been a considerable body of opinion which suggests that consent is essential, and I have a considerable volume of papers on the researches that have been made into that matter.
But let me come to the practical implication of the matter. How is this inspection of brakes to be carried out? Obviously Regulation No. 95 cannot, by its very length, enshrine the whole framework of a brake testing system applicable throughout the country under all conditions. What does it do? It says that there shall be power to inspect and test certain appliances, and for the moment I will limit my remarks to brakes. How do you test the brakes of a car? It is easy to find out in a garage that a car has no brakes. There are practical methods to find out not whether any particular standard of efficiency is attained or whether the brakes are insufficient. That is a matter of practical common sense.
The brakes may be tested on the road or with the consent of the owner of the premises, and that means somebody in charge of the premises. [Interruption.] It is a safeguarding point. As the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) has said, it is a point to deal with trespass and a point to deal with liberty. You can test a car on the road, but it is not proposed, under this Regulation, that you should test the brakes of a vehicle until you have brought it to a standstill to commence the test. You have power to inspect and test the brakes on the road. That is one set of circumstances, and that obviously will be by far the larger part of the practical results of this Regulation.
You are also to have power, if the car is not on the road, but has been removed from the road, to follow up the car. You cannot go into private property, so you are to get the permission of the representative of the premises where the car is. [Interruption.] The Regulation says "owner," and the owner or the owner's representative includes the occupier or the occupier's representative. An officer goes to the premises and asks, as he is in duty bound to do, for permission to enter those premises. That permission is either given or refused. I will assume that it is given, and the officer proceeds to an examination or a test of the car. The officer may be one for whom the Ministry of Transport is responsible, or he may not; he may be a police officer in uniform. The Regulation says that it must be a police officer in uniform or an examiner, who must, if required, pro-duce his authority. [An HON. MEMBER: "What happens if the permission is refused?"] I cannot deal with a dozen hypothetical possibilities. These are practical Regulations to be administered in a practical way to deal with a practical problem. If we find that there is some deficiency in them or some difficulty in their application, then it will be a case on which the Home Secretary and I will have to confer. For the moment I am putting what is a perfectly simple proposition. It is that the car has been removed from the road, that you go to the premises where the car is, ask for permission to enter, and, on the hypothesis that I am putting to the House, obtain permission and carry out the examination.

Sir David Reid: What happens if the owner of the garage refuses to give consent?

Mr. Burgin: Do not let us build a whole superstructure on a rather narrow basis. I am endeavouring to help the House by showing how reasonable the proposal which is before it is when it is looked at closely. I am saying that the owner of the garage premises or his representative, or the occupier or his representative, gives permission for what would otherwise be trespassing.

Sir D. Reid: The Minister says that the wording of the Regulation will be satisfied by the consent of the representative of the occupier of the premises. Is there anything in the Act under which the Regulations are made, or any definition Clause in these Regulations, which justifies that statement?

Mr. Burgin: One of the reasons I used that expression is that it is so difficult to look a limited company in the face. Of course it means "representative." Of course it means "duly authorised agent." The whole business world would come to a standstill if somebody could not act as representative or agent.

Sir D. Reid: It is not here. That is the point.

Mr. Burgin: The consent is given to what would otherwise be a trespass. So far we are in agreement. The hon. and gallant Member and his friend now ask that before the inspection of testing of a car takes place the owner should be notified so that he or his representative can attend. I agree, and as Minister of Transport I give an undertaking to the House that directions will be issued at once to all officers under the control of the Ministry that wherever practicable[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps the House will be reasonable and remember that we are dealing with a practical problem. I say that, wherever practicable, notice shall be given to the owner of the vehicle with a view to the owner or his representative being present at the time when the test or inspection is made.

Mr. Hopkin: You cannot bind the police.

Mr. Burgin: I have just said that as far as any officer under my control is


concerned, I give the House an undertaking that those instructions will be issued and will be made public. It is said that I cannot bind the police. I agree, but on 24th May my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said:
My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking in response to representations by Members of this House that, in regard to garages, he is advising chief officers of police not to undertake such an examination, save in the most exceptional circumstances, without notifying the owner of the vehicle as well as the owner of the premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 5937; col. 20, Vol. 324.]
As I say, we are dealing with a practical problem, and I am as anxious to protect the rights of the individual as any hon. Member. I understand the difficulties that have been raised about commercial travellers' samples, and about the possibility of entering a garage to look at one car and furtively inspecting another. How am I endeavouring to meet those difficulties? I say that as far as my officers are concerned they shall not do it. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department has said that the Secretary of State undertakes that the police shall be instructed not to do it—[HON, MEMBERS: "Advised!"]—that chief constables should be advised not to allow their officers to do it. I want the words to be accurate. I am not attempting to make any false point.
Over and above that I say to the House that in conjunction with the Secretary of State I will closely watch the working of these Regulations to deal with practical difficulties as they arise, and, if necessary, have them amended. Those are the assurances that I am in a position to give the House, and I invite the co-operation of motoring Members of the House. They are all interested in this problem. I invite their co-operation in seeing that no encouragement is given by this House to the continuance on the road of any vehicle, the brakes of which are faulty and the brakes of which could be improved by inspection or by test. There is nothing inquisitorial about it. The enabling power was conferred by Parliament in 1930 and was brought into use on the last day of May of this year. I ask hon. Members to give these Regulations a trial and if they are found in practice to go further than is necessary for what I have in mind, I shall be the

first to come to the House and ask for their amendment.

10.40 p.m.

Captain Strickland: It has seldom been my lot to hear a Minister getting up to defend Regulations base his arguments on so narrow a platform as the Minister of Transport has done to-night. I cannot help feeling somewhat sorry because I know that he has for so short a time been in charge of that office, and I can only think that he has not yet had the opportunity of going thoroughly into the history of the Regulations which have governed motor work in this country. He said, "My own officers shall be instructed to warn the owners of vehicles, and so far as we are able the police officers of the country shall be warned that, so far as is practicable, they shall give notice to the owners of the vehicles." He has in those few words acknowledged the justice of the Prayer which we are moving to-night; he has acknowledged that, so far as is practicable, the owners of vehicles shall be warned that their vehicles have been or will be tampered with, either by one of his own inspectors or by a police officer. He talks of lessening the toll of accidents by reason of this heavy inspection of brakes that is going to take place, and he gives us figures which confirm the very charge that we have brought against the administration as to their persecution of motorists over many years past. He says that there are thousands of charges brought against motorists for brake defects, but he carefully omits to give any idea that, according to the figures published for 1933, the fatal accidents resulting from defective brakes were one-half per cent. of the total; and in order to prevent those one or two particular cases, he proposes, under these Regulations, to penalise every decent driver and owner of a motor vehicle throughout the whole country.
We have rather strayed from what we are asking to-night. The Minister has challenged us as to how we should deal with this matter. We are not asking that. We are asking that the new principle that is incorporated in this new Regulation No. 95 shall be withdrawn, not for the purpose of obstructing the legitimate desire that we all have for the prevention of accidents, but in order to prevent a grave injustice and a great inconvenience being inflicted on the decent motorists of


this country. The right hon. Gentleman makes his plea for the co-operation of motorists, but does he tell the House that when the co-operation of the motorists, the A.A. and the R.A.C., was asked on the draft Regulations here, they themselves asked then for this Regulation not to be put forward in its present form? Their co-operation, so carefully promised in 1930 as being one of the safeguards, was entirely ignored, and yet these are people, not who want to see accidents, cars smashed up, and people killed, but who are,as genuinely anxious as is any Minister for the prevention of accidents.
The Minister is going to keep a close watch on how these Regulations work out, but that is exactly what we have had all the time. We have had the people in the country penalised time after time until the case has been so overwhelming that the Regulation has been altered. But why, if he acknowledges the justice of what we are asking, have thousands of motorists all over the country to submit to penalties up to a fine of £20 for something which will be withdrawn later because the bulk of the prosecutions which have happened have failed? It is a minor point perhaps, but when the Minister suggests that badges are not mascots, I suggest that in the case of a man being thrown back on to the sharp edge of a badge, it is just as likely to cause serious injury to that man as is a mascot. After all, a mascot is a mascot. We know what a mascot is, but practically every ordinary mascot in use on the recognised makes of cars will come under this Regulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The actual Regulation says:
No mascot shall be carried by a motor vehicle registered on or after 1st October, 1037, in any position where it is likely to strike any person with whom the vehicle may collide unless the mascot is not liable to cause injury to such person by reason of any projection thereon.
What is a projection? The Minister talks about those long nasty beaks that are likely to cause accidents. I asked the last Minister of Transport how many accidents had been caused by mascots, including those long dangerous things that we agree ought not to be allowed on motor cars? The Ministry could produce only two cases in seven years of fatal accidents because of them. Who is prepared to say that a mascot like that of the Armstrong Siddeley car which has a

head that projects, will not come under this Regulation? The projection need not necessarily come forward. It can be a projection upwards, for a person falling backwards as a result of an accident and striking his head on it is likely to have his skull cracked and the owner would be responsible. Because of the few accidents that have happened owing to mascots, the Minister is proposing to make them illegal, and thousands of persons who have bought their cars will have to replace something which is an integral part of the car and cannot easily be replaced. I made the suggestion in the course of the interview that the Regulation might be so framed that it would forbid the use of any mascot which projected beyond the line of the radiator, because that would be a dangerous mascot. We could get no satisfaction from the Minister with regard to it.
If the House passes these Regulations they will fasten some fresh offence on motorists. That need not be done. With a little care the bad cases will be well covered. We had in 1930, when this matter was being brought forward, a definite pledge from the Minister that they had no intention of making niggling Regulations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said that it was not their intention to indulge in wholesale inspection of vehicles, but it was necessary that duly authorised officers should have power to test and inspect brakes, steering gear and so on, not merely on the roads, but elsewhere, both for the convenience of the motorist and for the convenience of administration. He was very careful to define what he meant by "elsewhere," and he laid down that the owner of the vehicle ought to be protected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
I would have liked to develop my case, but I have a sense of the feeling of the House, and it is that they have heard sufficient of the case to form a judgment. Therefore, I do not propose to develop the argument as I would have liked to do. I want to make this appeal. We ask not for the termination of the Regulations for the safety of the roads or for the removal of the existing Regulations which govern that safety, but we do ask that these Regulations shall be withdrawn, that the old Regulations which have been found sufficient shall continue, and that the


Ministry will consult with the motoring organisations to find a form of Regulation by which the bad motorists shall not escape and by which the good motorist shall not be further penalised because of loose drafting.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I am perfectly certain that everybody in this House is agreed about the necessity for safe motor vehicles, and certainly we on this side would not withhold from the Government any power, however inconvenient to motorists and motoring organisations, which made for the safety of the public. That is common ground. But the point here is between the House of Commons and the Government. There was a time when a Regulation of this kind would have required some definite decision by this House. In late years we have had much of what may be called departmental legislation. We have a mass of Regulations brought forward and presented to us, and we have to say, "Yes," or "No." This departmental legislation has been the subject of much comment and no one has spoken with more force than the Lord Chief Justice. I plead with the Minister to give the House a chance of exercising its proper function, which is to decide on the matter. As it is, the only possible means the House has is to say, "Please take them back,"—there is nothing disgraceful in that—"and put them in a form which you yourself admit is the proper form" Do not tell us that you will endeavour to influence another Minister who will endeavour to influence a body of police over whom he has no power. Do not tell us that, when there is a perfectly simple way of dealing with the matter and enabling the House of Commons to express its opinion.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I would like to say with what great pleasure and surprise I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down.

Mr. Benn: Why surprise?

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman had been in the last Parliament he would know why I said "surprise," because although my friends and I expressed in the House the views which have been expressed by the Lord Chief Justice and others on this departmental legislation, this is the first occasion in the last four

or five years when we have had any support from the party above the Gangway. I could not resist making that comment. The Minister this evening entirely failed to meet the principal points that were made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Prayer. He did not deal sufficiently with the difference between owner and occupier, which is one of the most important questions that have been raised this evening, because when he came to that point he told the House that the term "owner" in this connection would include the representative of the premises where the car is. Those were his words. I accept that, but if in fact a representative of the premises where the car is would be regarded as the owner and his permission would be sufficient, that does not mean that the term "owner" is synonymous with the term "occupier." The owner might live 100 miles away.
The Minister went on to say that he agreed that the owner of the car should be notified, and that a direction would be issued that wherever practicable notice should be given with a view to the owner of the car being present. When it was pointed out that he had no power over the police he referred to an answer given by the Under-Secretary to the Home Department that the police would not do this without notifying the owner of the vehicle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I shall make my point whatever hon. Members above the Gangway may say or think. The point is that the two undertakings are not the same. The undertaking given by the Minister on behalf of the Ministry of Transport is that notice shall be given wherever practicable with a view to the owner of the car being present. In the case of the police, they are simply to notify, and there is no question of the owner of the car being present.
There seems to be a substantial difference between the undertakings given by the two Departments. Not only have we the permission given to public service vehicle examiners under the Act of 1930, and to the examiners under the Act of 1933, but we have the permission which is here given to police constables who may not be skilled in the examination of motor vehicles. They may have no sort of qualification for the task which is contemplated in this particular Regulation, but they may afterwards be called upon to give evidence that the vehicle is defective.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] That is an exceedingly serious matter to a large number of people, because if a man is alleged to have taken out a defective vehicle, that may be an offence for which he can be prosecuted, and if he is a road haulier he may lose his licence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I hope the hon. Gentleman behind me will allow me to make these points. If we are to have, as we might have under either of these assurances, inspections of a vehicle without the owner being present, evidence may afterwards be given that the brakes of the vehicle were defective in some way, which it would be quite impossible for the owner of the vehicle to controvert. It seems to me that the Minister entirely failed to meet the case, and if this Motion goes to a Division I shall vote in favour of it.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I hope that I am a sufficiently good House of Commons man to be able to interpret the feelings and desires of Members of the House generally, and I want to make a proposal. I propose to read very carefully the speeches which have been made by hon. Members in all parts of the House on this Regulation No. 95. I should like an opportunity to amend that Regulation. I should like to amend it in consultation with other Departments of the State, and to include in it the point about notification to the owner of the vehicle, with an opportunity, wherever practicable, for the owner or his representative to be present. I undertake, if the House will allow the remaining Regulations to be passed now, to amend No. 95 immediately, and the notification of the Amendment will, of course, be subject to a Prayer, just as the Regulations themselves are. The reason I put the proposal in that form is that these Regulations, which were made on 24th March by my predecessor, are in force, and a good deal of confusion would be caused if the House were to ask for the whole of them to be withdrawn. If the House will consent to the matter being handled in that way, the undertaking which I have given applies, and applies immediately.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker? I know that it is the intention of the Minister to amend the Regulation by a Prayer, but I should like your

guidance as to whether that would be possible.

Mr. Speaker: The first step would be for this Prayer to be withdrawn and then, if the Prayer were withdrawn, for the Minister to bring forward an amended Regulation.

Captain Strickland: May I ask whether the Minister proposes to consult the motoring organisations as well as the different Departments of State, with regard to the framing of the new Regulations, to secure all that he wants with regard to the inspection of faulty brakes, and yet, at the same time, not put unnecessary difficulties in the way of the ordinary average motorist?

Mr. Burgin: I should have thought that the speeches which have been made in the House to-night would enable a Minister to interpret the wishes of all parties in framing a Regulation which will satisfy this House.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I think the Minister recognises the feeling of the House in this matter. It is not a matter of specially consulting the motoring organisations; this is a question for the House of Commons. We are faced with a difficulty which has faced us several times, particularly in respect of unemployment Regulations, owing to the practice of bringing forward Regulations which cannot be amended. The procedure needs overhauling. The Minister cannot amend these Regulations himself, as they come before us; they have to be accepted or rejected. We have a definite pledge from the Minister that if these Regulations go through, he will forthwith produce amending Regulations to get rid of these difficulties. I think he has met the matter.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.